Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Warkworth Harbour Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the unofficial British directors on the board of the Suez Canal Company; the date of their appointment; the nature of their duties and when and where performed; have they any specialised business experience, either in British commercial or exporting interests; and what is their remuneration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The unofficial British directors are:

Mr. T. Harrison Hughes (appointed in 1919),
Sir E. Wyldbore-Smith (appointed in 1920),
Sir R. Horne (appointed in 1923),
Sir Alan Anderson (appointed in 1927),
Sir J. Cadman (appointed in 1927),
Sir T. Royden (appointed in 1929),
Sir A. Cayzer (appointed in 1932).

Their duties are the same as those of the other directors, namely to attend board meetings at the company's headquarters in Paris once a month or more often if the affairs of the company require it. All have had specialised business experience in British commercial or exporting interests. According to the statutes of the company 2 per cent. of its net profits are reserved for payment of the directors, who number 32. Their emoluments consequently vary from year to year. The net profits for 1934 were

approximately 522 million French francs, and the total sum paid to the whole board of directors was therefore approximately 10½ million French francs.

Mr. DAY: How many meetings were held last year?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I cannot say. It is a private company and over the appointment of these directors the Government have no control.

Mr. DAY: Is there any age at which they have to retire?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have explained that the position of the directors is not controlled by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that these unofficial directors are really elected by the shipping owners in this country who, by paying dues, really provide the bulk of the profits?

Mr. EDE: Is the gentleman described by the Noble Lord as Sir R. Home more usually referred to in this House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead?

Sir PATRICK HANNON: Is it not a fact that the services rendered by these directors are of great importance to the commerce and industry of this country?

Mr. MAXTON: Are the 500,000 French francs divided equally among all the directors?

Viscount CRANBORNE: This is not a matter that is controlled by the Government, but I understand that the amount received by the directors is not the same because it varies according to the number of meetings attended and also the profits of the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that the meetings of the Council of the League of Nations now being held in London shall be held in such a place that the Press and public can be present, in view of the immense interest taken in the proceedings?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the fact that the present extraordinary


session of the Council of the League is being held at Saint James' Palace serves to mark in an outstanding manner the very special importance of its deliberations. I regret that the available accommodation does not make it possible to admit the general public to the meetings, but having regard to the special circumstances of the present session, my right hon. Friend is fully satisfied that the best possible arrangements have been made.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the tremendous interest taken in the proceedings all over the world, is it not really deplorable that the Press, as well as the public, are not able to be present to watch the proceedings?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Full publicity is given at the public meetings by the presence of representatives of the Press in two rooms adjoining the Council Chamber, into both of which the proceedings are broadcast by loud speakers. In the two rooms there is accommodation for 200 persons.

Mr. THORNE: Is it possible for any Member of Parliament to obtain a permit to get inside?

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries with a view to ascertaining the names of the countries with which Germany is unwilling to make a non-aggression or mutual-assistance pact?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Is not Russia the main country concerned?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I do not think so.

Mr. COCKS: Is it a fact that Germany has refused to make a mutual-assistance pact with any country and that, even if she did, she would break it at the first opportunity?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute and the meetings of the Committees of Eighteen and

Thirteen; and whether it is proposed to apply further sanctions?

Viscount CRANBORNE: In the reply which I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 16th March, I stated that the Committee of Thirteen would meet as soon as practicable to take cognisance of the replies of the Italian and Ethiopian Governments to the Committee's appeal for the immediate opening of negotiations. Until this meeting has taken place it would be premature for me to make any statement as regards the future proceedings of the Committee of Eighteen, which must be largely guided by the results of that meeting.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Noble Lord give an assurance that in the larger crisis that has arisen Abyssinia will not be sacrificed?

Viscount CRANBORNE: All considerations will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (NANSEN INTERNATIONAL OFFICE).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been definitely decided that the Nansen Office for refugees in Geneva shall be liquidated; and, if so, from whom will such refugees then obtain passports?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The Assembly of the League of Nations decided in 1928 that the Nansen International Office should be liquidated within ten years. But, as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the last Assembly set up a committee to consider the question of international assistance for these refugees, and the next Assembly will be called upon to take decisions in regard to the committee's proposals. I am not, therefore, yet in a position to give an answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the Noble Lord bear in mind that it is necessary to have some form of international control over these unfortunate people, who will not be able to move about unless they have passports?

Viscount CRANBORNE: That is one of the subjects the committee has had under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SIR F. LEITH-ROSS' VISIT.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Sir Frederick Leith-Ross is expected to terminate his visit to China; and whether he will visit Japan on his way home?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The date of Sir Frederick Leith-Ross' return and his future movements are still undecided.

Mr. MOREING: Has Sir Frederick Leith-Ross made any interim report, as to the results of his visit?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I think that is another question.

SIR ALEXANDER CADOGAN.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Alexander Cadogan, His Majesty's Ambassador in China, on taking up his new appointment at the Foreign Office as Deputy Under-Secretary, will have special charge of Far-Eastern affairs?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The duties of Sir Alexander Cadogan when he takes up his appointment as Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will not be confined to the treatment of Far Eastern questions, but advantage will naturally be taken of the experience which he has gained during the two years which he has spent as His Majesty's Representative in China.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BEEF SUPPLIES (MEDITERRANEAN).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any supplies of beef for the British Fleet in the Mediterranean are being purchased from Yugoslavia?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No, Sir.

CIGARETTES.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what restrictions, if any, are placed on the sale of cigarettes in canteens on ships of the Royal Navy?

Lord STANLEY: The only restrictions on the sale of cigarettes duty free in canteens in His Majesty's ships are that

such cigarettes may be sold only to a member of the crew of the ship concerned, and that the sale of large flat packings of cigarettes is not permitted. Duty paid sales are not subject to these restrictions.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any restriction as to the make of cigarettes?

Lord STANLEY: Not that I am aware of.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of unskilled non-tradesmen employés in the Royal Clarence yard, Gosport, Priddy's yard, Gosport, and His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, respectively, who have been retained over the age of 60 years and beyond the 90 days allowed to complete time for bonus during the last two years?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The numbers are: Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport, 2; Royal Naval Armament Depot, Priddy's Yard, Gosport, 20; His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, 52.

OIL SUPPLY.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what quantity of oil produced from shale is used annually by the Royal Navy; and whether he will do everything possible to encourage the use of shale oil in order to ensure the development of the mines and thus assist employment in this vital industry?

Mr. LINDSAY: The quantity of oil produced from Scottish shale purchased annually for the Royal Navy amounts to about 50,000 gallons of light products, the exact quantity bring unascertainable because one of the products purchased, namely, petroleum spirit, is refined both from shale oil and imported petroleum in unknown proportions. The existence of a duty of 8d. a gallon on imported petroleum spirit is a direct encouragement to the development of these mines. The Admiralty are giving every possible encouragement.

CHINESE ART LOANS (TRANSPORT).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether one of His Majesty's


ships is to convey back to China the loans of the Chinese Government to the recent exhibition of Chinese art?

Lord STANLEY: It has not been possible to arrange for the conveyance of these treasures in one of His Majesty's ships, but I hope that it will be possible for the ship, carrying them to be escorted by His Majesty's ships for most of her voyage.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether it is intended to negotiate a bilateral Anglo-German naval convention on limitation and exchange of information and supplementing the naval agreement;
(2) whether he will make a report to the House on the naval negotiations; and is it intended that a qualitative Anglo-German naval treaty should be negotiated as a supplement to the existing Anglo-German naval treaty?

Lord STANLEY: A general statement on the work of the London Naval Conference, 1935, was made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson) on 4th February last. The technical sub-committee which was then examining definitions, etc., has since submitted a report upon those matters, and also a report upon qualitative limitation. The first committee, having considered these reports, has appointed a drafting committee to prepare the draft of a treaty with a view to signature by the participating Powers. It is our hope that similar agreements will be negotiated with other Naval Powers, these of course including Germany.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Noble Lord aware of the deep anxiety that exists in France with regard to this?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUI-TSAI, HONG KONG AND MALAYA (COMMISSION).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is his intention to send a commission to Hong Kong to investigate the mui-tsai problem?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. After consultation with the Governors concerned, I have decided to appoint a commission to visit Hong Kong and Malaya, with the following terms of reference:
To investigate the whole question of mui-tsai in Hong Kong and Malaya, and of any surviving practices in those territories of transferring women and children for valuable consideration, whether on marriage or adoption, or in any other circumstances, and to report to the Secretary of State on any legislative or other action which they may consider practicable and desirable in relation to these matters.
The commission will consist of three persons: Sir Wilfrid Woods, late Financial Secretary in the Government of Ceylon, also will act as chairman; Miss Picton-Turbervill, lately a Member of this House; and Mr. C. A. Willis, late of the Sudan Civil Service, on the recommendation of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Mr. WHITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that reply, which I think will give great and general satisfaction as evidence of his intention to deal with this matter finally in order to remove this scandal, whether he will be prepared to lay a White Paper, and, if so, when? I am not sure whether the terms of reference include trading in male children, and will the commission also have power to deal, under the terms of reference, with the importation of mui-tsai from China into the Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: I have endeavoured to draw the terms of reference so wide as to include everything. I believe that this is one of the matters which all parties in the House would desire to see dealt with and abolished, and I have appointed this commission in an endeavour to accomplish that.

Mr. W. ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the inhabitants of Hong Kong before making a change in their social system?

Mr. THOMAS: I presume the wishes of Hong Kong will be consulted, but if it means that the inhabitants of Hong Kong want to prolong this method, I am certainly against that suggestion.

Miss RATHBONE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman warmly for the excellent steps that he has taken in sending


out such a strong commission, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that mui-tsai concerns exclusively girls and is a very difficult question for men to investigate, he will consider sending two women as well as two men, one of whom should have had previous knowledge of China and its customs?

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the hon. Lady will realise that Miss Picton-Turbervill will be able to hold her own.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the commission have full authority to investigate the matter not only in the Straits Settlements, which are a British Colony, but also in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (DEFENCE FORCES).

Captain F. E. GUEST: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why the Executive Council for Kenya Colony, which includes two elected members, namely, Lord Francis Scott and Major Cavendish Bentinck, was not informed or consulted by the Governor before making public his plans for disbanding the Kenya Settlers Defence Force and replacing it by a different organisation;
(2) why the commandant of the Kenya Settlers Defence Force, General Lewin, was not consulted or informed of the Governor's plans for disbanding the Kenya Settlers Defence Force?

Mr. THOMAS: The question whom the Governor should consult is one entirely for his discretion. The fact that a reorganisation was being considered was a matter of general knowledge in the Colony.

Captain GUEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it indicates a very serious situation when a Governor has to ignore his own Executive Council; and does not he think that there are other matters in the same connection which ought to be discussed by this House of Commons?

Mr. THOMAS: I indicated yesterday that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter, and I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend would

not expect me to make any comment on this matter personally.

Captain GUEST: Will that discussion take place within a reasonable distance of time?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know the exact date, but there will be an opportunity.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a considerable feeling in Kenya that it would be a grave mistake to reorganise the Army on regular and more disciplined lines, and that an irregular force would be more suitable to the difficulties and conditions prevailing there?

Mr. THOMAS: I am well aware of the difference of opinion, but I do not think that there is any real difference of opinion in Kenya that the steps I have taken to reorganise the Army are upon a basis which anyone with any knowledge of the matter would consider the best, and are not challenged.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (KING GEORGE V. NATIONAL PARK).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position with regard to the King George V. national park in Malaya; and whether the Government will give every encouragement to the preservation of wild fauna in the area?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, as I explained in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), on 12th February, steps are being taken to expedite the matter. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

Mr. MATHERS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I am correct in assuming that the park has definitely been named the King George V. Park, there is any dubiety about that designation or not?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not certain as to the exact definition c f the park, but I am certain that stem are being taken, as I have indicated to expedite the matter, and a grant has already been made; and, further, every encouragement will be given by me.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (GIFT FOR IMPERIAL DEFENCE).

Mr. TREE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement with regard to the gift by the Straits Settlements to His Majesty's Government of a sum of 500,000 dollars towards the cost of Empire defence?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. I have learnt from the Governor that on 17th February last the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements unanimously adopted a motion approving the gift to His Majesty's Government of the sum mentioned (which is roughly £58,000) as a contribution towards the cost of Imperial defence. I have already caused an expression of thanks to be conveyed to the Council on behalf of His Majesty's Government. This is the third year in succession in which the Straits Settlements have made a gift of this nature to His Majesty's Government, and I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing to the Colony our warm appreciation of their generous and public-spirited action.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two previous gifts were of the same amount?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RATIONS (MARGARINE).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the low-priced and inferior quality of margarine supplied to the Air Force is of the type to which vitamins A and D have been artificially added or is it of the non-vitamin containing variety?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The margarine supplied to apprentices and boys in the Royal Air Force is vitaminised, but not that supplied to airmen.

Mr. LEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the insertion of these vitamins in margarine can actually be performed with success; and does he know that butter contains both these vitamins?

Viscountess ASTOR: Can my right hon. Friend persuade the Government to take

a little of the money from beet sugar and put more vitamins into the fighting Services?

Sir P. SASSOON: I believe medical authorities consider that vitaminised margarine is equal if not superior to butter—

Mr. STEPHEN: Do you use it in your own household?

Sir P. SASSOON: —because the vitamin content of butter varies according to the seasons of the year.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly which quality the Government consume?

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the provision of margarine is not determined by the cost?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of margarine instead of butter has a very serious effect upon recruiting?

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the experiments conducted by Dr. Cory Mann, on behalf of the British Medical Research Council, which showed that butter promoted growth and development in the case of growing boys, whereas margarine failed in this respect; and will he discontinue to take the risk to the health and physique of the youths and men of the Air Force involved in continuing the use of margarine?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, I am aware of the experiments referred to by the hon. Member. As regards the second part, I have just stated that fully vitaminised margarine is supplied to apprentices and boys.

Mr. LEACH: Will the Under-Secretary tell the House in a single word whether he himself personally approves of the use of margarine rather than butter?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is margarine being provided instead of butter because of the cost, or because it is superior to butter?

Sir P. SASSOON: My information is that the use of margarine for the forces was brought in by the Labour Government.

OIL SUPPLY.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the importance of maintaining and developing the Scottish shale-oil industry is recognised by his Department; and whether efforts will be made to increase the use of oil produced from shale by the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that oil produced from shale is not suitable for Royal Air Force requirements.

CONTRACTS (PRICES).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give some examples of the operation of the costings control system in regard to Air Force contracts and of limitation of profits thereby effected?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the House has already been informed, prices have not yet been fixed in the case of the great bulk of orders for aircraft and engines under the expansion scheme, but work is proceeding on a basis of Instructions to Proceed. It is impossible, therefore, to give detailed examples, though I may say that in one of the few cases in which a price has been fixed for a substantial order, a reduction of approximately 16 per cent. on the price previously paid for the same article has been agreed with the firm concerned.

Mr. BROOKE: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman himself has informed the House that a costing system has been in operation for the last 12 months; and can he give us any information now as to what the result has been?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have done so in my answer.

Mr. BENSON: Are we to understand that the pledge which was given 12 months ago that there should be a costing system has so far operated only in one case.

Sir P. SASSOON: As I said in my answer, very few orders have yet been affected by fixing of prices.

Mr. BENSON: Have no aeroplanes been ordered in the last 12 months?

Sir P. SASSOON: I explained yesterday the procedure which we adopt.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIRCRAFT PRODUC LION (WAGES).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the stop-watch and time-study methods are satisfactory in the production of aircraft, and are in application consistent with the spirit and terms of the 1910 fair wages resolution of the House of Commons?

Sir P. SASSOON: The fixing of piecework and premium bonus rates is primarily a matter for settlement between employers and employés. In so far as the application of the fair wages resolution may be in question, no complaint of infringement has been made to the Air Ministry. Should such a complaint be made, it will be investigated.

Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this method of production satisfies the high standard of inspection which the Department demands or secures that airworthiness which is also demanded?

Sir P. SASSOON: If the hon. Member will give me any case of infringement of the fair wages clause, I will gladly look into it.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the War the men at Farnborough refused to work under this system?

MANBY AERODROME.

Mr. MARKLEW: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that 50 local labourers engaged on construction work at the Manby (Lincs.) aerodrome were discharged on Saturday, 7th March, and their places filled immediately by the engagement of 50 Irish immigrants; and whether such practice is in conformity with the terms and conditions of contracts entered into by his Department for aerodrome construction?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am informed that the men were discharged because their particular work had come to an end, and that they have not been replaced. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the United States Government supported the Irish Transatlantic Corporation, Limited, in their plans for a North Atlantic air service; that the air experts at their London Embassy assisted this company in the preparation of reports submitted to the Air Ministry and to the Department of Commerce, Washington; and that the United Aircraft Corporation of America prepared an estimate of cost for working a trans-Atlantic service on behalf of this company; and, in view of these facts, why his Department have maintained that the Government of the United States would not recognise the American air terminal being placed on Canadian territory at the nearest practical point to Europe?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first three parts of the question, I am not in a position to confirm the facts stated. As regards the last part, my hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension, and I am not clear what Air Ministry statements he has in mind.

AEROPLANE FITTING (MISHAP).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS (for Mrs. TATE): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the weight of the portion of engine cowling which fell recently from an Imperial Airways machine into Brighton Road, Purley, Surrey?

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to a cabin door falling from an aeroplane in Brighton Road, Purley; whether he will state the cause; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid a recurrence?

Sir P. SASSOON: My information is that the fitting which fell was a wooden sliding-panel, the emergency exit of the pilot's cockpit, weighing about 5½ lb. The company are reviewing the fitting design, and this matter will be carefully watched by the Air Ministry.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the right lion. Gentleman make sure that bits of aeroplanes are not dropped all over my constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

PASSENGER TRAIN DOORS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a compartment door of a train at Laindon, Essex, being opened before the train had stopped at the station in which more than 30 people standing on the platform were injured; and will he consider asking the railway companies to have doors fitted on steam trains similar to those fitted on electric trains which cannot be opened until the train has stopped at the station platform?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company inform me that the adoption of the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question would involve the replacement of the whole of their stock with new vehicles, and in view of the danger which would exist from automatically locking passengers in on ordinary trains, I am not prepared to press the companies in the direction indicated.

Mr. DAY: Has the Minister had any reply from any other railway company?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We have had repeated communications with various railway companies, but it was the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company which was involved in the incident described in the question.

Mr. DAY: If the right hon. Gentleman has had any communication with other railway companies will he say what their replies have been?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have indicated the attitude of the Ministry of Transport.

OLD QUEBEC STREET.

Sir CYRIL COBB: asked the Minister of Transport whether any decision has yet been reached as to the re-opening of the part of Old Quebec Street, W., between Bryanston Street and Oxford Street, now used as a storage for motor vehicles, so that both sides of the street may be used for moving traffic between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have been asked to reply. I understand that Old Quebec Street is a one-way thoroughfare and is


used to a large extent by vehicles belonging to persons who are making short calls at neighbouring buildings. The Oxford Street end has not been closed as a public thoroughfare and no question of its reopening accordingly arises. The difficulties of keeping the neighbourhood free from obstruction by standing vehicles have been explained in reply to previous questions. The police have not relaxed and will not relax their efforts to prevent undue congestion.

FOOTPATHS.

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the cost of his programme of work in the next five years will be spent on footpaths; whether he is aware that many of the unimproved and unwidened existing roads need footwalks but are without them; and whether he will consider special grants in aid to county councils for providing footwalks along existing roads where they are needed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The rapidity with which the provision of footpaths is proceeding is indicated by the record of last year, which shows that 1,837 miles of footpaths were provided, equal to the distance from John o' Groats to Land's End and back. Separate estimates of the cost of footpaths included in the works comprising the five-year programme have not been taken out, but I have made it a condition of a grant from the Road Fund that footpaths shall be provided wherever necessary. Expenditure on the provision of footpaths already ranks for grant at the rates appropriate to other works of improvement on the roads concerned.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also spend money on footpaths which are not along main roads—footpaths through the country which are used for communication purposes?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

MOTOR CAR HEADLIGHTS.

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in drafting regulations on the subject of headlights, he will, with a view to lessening the possibility of accidents, give consideration to the pedestrian; whether he will note that the pedestrian usually gets

no relief from the continual glare of head-lights; and wit he draw the attention of motorists to the advisability of dimming and dipping lights when approaching pedestrians?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The proper course of conduct in this matter is so much to be determined by circumstances that I do not think it would be advisable in the interests of safety to go further than paragraph 2 of the Highway Code, which enjoins care and courtesy upon all users of the road.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever met any of these vehicles with powerful headlights late at night; if so, what does he think about them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My thoughts will be expressed in the new regulations.

RAILWAY SEASON TICKET HOLDERS.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ascertain whether the railway companies will permit a holder of a season ticket to deposit his ticket at the local booking office before proceeding on his annual holiday and to receive it back on returning from his holiday, with the date of expiry of the ticket extended by the number of days spent on holiday?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I receive a reply from the railway companies.

CHELSEA EMBANKMENT (BARRIERS).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the post-and-rail barriers which have been erected recently on the Chelsea Embankment enclosing portions of the carriageway near to Chelsea Old Church and the Albert Bridge; whether he is aware that these barriers cause obstruction to the traffic along the embankment and especially the barrier which partially blocks the access to Cheyne Walk leading to Queen's Road; and can he state the purpose for which they are being maintained and when they will be removed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The barriers were erected by the local authority in order to induce drivers proceeding eastwards to use the Embankment in preference to Cheyne Walk. I am in com-


munication on the matter with the Commissioner of Police and the local authority concerned, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister point out to the authority that it does not assist traffic for a roadway to be effectively reduced by one-half?

BRIDGE WORKS.

Mr. W. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Transport the number of cases in which he has offered assistance to bridge works, including the substitution of bridges for level crossings; and will he give the names and amount of grants in all such cases in Lancashire?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So far as bridge works have been separately recorded, grants have been made or promised towards 71 bridge reconstruction schemes in Lancashire during the financial years 1934–35 and 1935–36, particulars of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. This total is not exhaustive because many bridge works are included in comprehensive schemes of road improvement.

FIVE-YEAR ROAD PROGRAMME.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Minister of Transport (1) the amount of grants from the Road Fund towards new construction and major improvements estimated to be paid out of the Road Fund during the next five years;
(2) whether the £130,000,000, now stated to be the cost of schemes already approved under the five-year road plan, is to be wholly paid for out of the Road Fund; and whether the resources of the Road Fund will be sufficient to meet these demands?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the £130,000,000 now proposed to be spent under the five-year road plan on schemes already approved will fall upon the Road Fund and what proportion on the rates?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: £130,000,000 represents the estimated cost of schemes submitted by highway authorities under the five-year programme. So far as can be estimated at this stage the proportion of the cost of the programme ultimately approved which will be borne by the Road Fund is about 70 per cent.

Sir REGINALD CLARRY: What proportion of that amount has been approved?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The first year's instalment of the plans has been approved. I think it amounts to about £30,000,000, but I would prefer to have notice before giving the exact amount.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to standardise the intervals of time in switching traffic-lights from amber to green and from amber to red and ensure that a reasonable period elapses in switching from amber to red?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is intended to secure the maximum possible similarity, compatible with varying conditions, in the amber period, and observations are now being made at a number of selected junctions to this end.

BRIDGE (DEPTFORD CREEK).

Mr. WINDSOR (for Mr. W. H. GREEN): asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Southern Electric Railway runs across a wooden bridge over Deptford Creek and is responsible for holding up river traffic, and thus interfering with employment through vessels not being able to reach McCalls' wharf; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this obstruction of traffic?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The bridge carrying the railway over the creek was authorised by Parliament.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the case that the Minister of Transport approved of the wooden bridge which now crosses Deptford Creek?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Act was passed in 1833 as a result of which the bridge is there.

Mr. KELLY: But has the new bridge which was put there last year been put there with the approval of the Minister? That is not a question of 1833.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. I said it had been put there in pursuance of powers given by Parliament. Therefore I have no locus standi.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (DUNSTON POWER STATION).

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Transport whether the Dunston electric power station has been assisted financially by the Government; and, if so, whether there is any form of Government control?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No direct financial assistance has been given by the Government to this station. Under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, an interest grant was made to the Central Electricity Board for accelerating the standardisation of frequency in the North-East England area, which indirectly affected all electricity undertakings in that area. Dunston, being a selected station for the purposes of the grid system, will operate under the directions of the Central Electricity Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF WORKS.

Major OWEN: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the resuscitation of the Unemployment Grants Committee, with powers to make grants towards public works in depressed areas which are not scheduled under the Special Areas?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The Government deliberately discontinued the policy of unemployment relief works, which had been proved by experience to be extravagant and ineffective, and they have no intention of returning to it.

Major OWEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans in his mind for dealing with those distressed areas which do not come within the scope of Special Areas, and where in many districts for long periods the percentage of unemployment is even greater than in the Special Areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Special Areas Commissioner has power to make grants for such purposes as the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question of policy—whether the Government would resuscitate the Unemployment Grants Committee, and the answer must be, no.

ENGINEERS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Labour how many skilled engineers are registered as unemployed at the various Employment Exchanges throughout the country; whether he is aware that the Amalgamated Engineering Union have 9,500 skilled members of the union unemployed; and whether it is the custom and practice for engineering firms when they require skilled engineers, if they cannot get suitable employes from the Employment Exchanges, to apply to the district and central offices of the Amalgamated Engineering Union?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The number of wholly unemployed men aged 18 and over on the registers of the Employment Exchanges on the 2nd March, 1936, who were registered as applicants for employment in the main skilled engineering occupations (including fitters, turners, metal machinists and welders) was 31,719. Such registration is not a guarantee of any particular degree of skill and it is found at the present time that there is often difficulty in filling vacancies by reason of the fact that suitable men are not available. I cannot give the number of members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union unemployed but they would normally be included in the total I have quoted. As regards the last part of the question, I have no doubt that in a number of cases this is so, and I may add that the exchanges themselves make a practice of giving the union an opportunity of finding men for vacancies which the local exchanges are unable to fill.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the Parliamentary Secretary instruct his followers behind him not to handle the truth so lightly in future by saying—

HON. MEMBERS: Order.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to deal with a large number of the unemployed population of Durham County, described in a memorandum prepared by his Department upon the industrial surveys of the distressed areas for 1931 as definitely surplus, for whom provision will have to be made?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The measures that are being taken for the assistance of this and other Special Areas are set out in the report of the Commissioner for Special Areas, presented to Parliament last month, and were fully discussed in the Debate in this House on 2nd March.

Mr. STEWART: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the Commissioner's report it is stated that a transference scheme on a large scale is expected to solve the unemployment problem, but that the experience of the Industrial Transference Board has shown that it is very difficult to transfer unemployed from this particular area, owing to the fact that 67,000 of them are over the age of 35, with family responsibilities, and 52,000 of them are married?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think that the Commissioner ever said that transference would, to use the hon. Member's words, solve the unemployment problem. It has always been considered both by the Commissioner and the Government that transference is one method of helping to ease the problem but there are a great many other methods besides.

Mr. STEWART: Is it not suggested in the Commissioner's report that the transference scheme is expected to help in the solution of the problem; and may I ask what is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remedy to deal with this large number of persons over 35 years of age whom the transference scheme will not cover?

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask whether, apart from the proposals embodied in the Commissioner's report to deal with unemployment in these areas, the Government have any proposals of their own to deal with the question of surplus labour?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Government are helping to solve the unemployment problem throughout the country, as well as in the Special Areas, by the steady improvement in trade which has taken place. Along with that, they are taking such measures as the establishment of trading estates and the encouragement of new industries in the Special Areas; also by means of transference, where practicable, they are trying to give to the people in the Special Areas the advantages of improved trade in other parts of the country.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the trading estate policy not part of the Commissioner's policy; and, therefore, are we to understand that, apart from the proposals of the Commissioner, the Government rely entirely for a solution of the problem on a progressive improvement in trade?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Gentleman cannot divide the Commissioner's proposals from the Government's proposals. Indeed, one of the complaints of hon. Members opposite was that the Government had taken no notice of the Commissioner's proposals. The Commissioner's proposals are placed before the Government and the Government take notice of them and act upon them.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman opposite take the view that there is a progressive improvement in trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister which of the Government Departments have been entrusted with the arrangements for the defence of London; and which Department will be in charge of the same, and will the Minister for Coordinating Defence be responsible to the Government and this House for the coordination of these arrangements?

The PRIME MINISTER: The air defence of London forms part of the arrangements of the Air Defence of Great Britain, which are under the operational control of an Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief—Air Squadrons and the Observer Corps being provided by the Air Ministry, and guns and lights by the War Office. Co-ordination of these arrangements is already established and is primarily the responsibility of the Air Ministry; but any major questions in regard to them would be proper to the Co-ordinating Minister.

Mr. DAY: Can the Prime Minister say whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing any of these arrangements before they are finally settled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt the hon. Member could find a suitable opportunity.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any real possibility in the very near future of abolishing bombing aeroplanes?

The PRIME MINISTER: I wish there were.

Mr. MAXTON: In saying that the hon. Member will find an opportunity, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday, on the discussion of the Air Estimates, hon. Members were deliberately and definitely precluded by the Chair from discussing the plans of London defence on the understanding that they were not the responsibility of the Air Ministry, but of the War Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter could certainly be raised on the Adjournment, and, although I would not like to commit myself, I imagine it could be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill also.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have taken steps to ensure that the heavy additional demand which will be made upon the banking system to carry out the requirements of our Defence Forces, as outlined in Command Paper 5107, will not have the effect of increasing rates of interest or withholding banking facilities required by general industry; and will he reassure the House that the policy of the Government will continue to be one which will maintain cheap money?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I see no reason to suppose that the requirements of our Defence Forces will have any adverse effect in the direction indicated or will interfere with the maintenance of a policy of cheap money.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: If there are indications that the additional demands to be made will make a difference in regard to financial facilities, may we be assured that the Government will take some action?

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS MEN (GASTRIC DISORDERS).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress the Industrial Health Research Board of the Medical Research Council has made respecting the investigation of the cause of gastric disorders among omnibus men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the investigation is being actively pursued, but that it has only recently begun and is still in an early stage. It will necessarily take some time to collect reliable statistics to show whether an excessive incidence of gastric disease is, in a fact, associated with this occupation. If an affirmative answer is obtained it is proposed to extend the inquiry to a study of possible causes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. BROOKE: asked the Prime Minister when he expects a report to be presented from the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Arms?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 3rd March last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) to which I can add nothing.

Mr. BROOKE: Has the Prime Minister any information as to how long and for what reasons the Commission has adjourned its sittings, and whether we can have an assurance that the Commission will meet again to carry out the task given to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Commission will have to meet again. The answer I gave the other day still holds good, and the Commission have not finished.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Commission at all about the Government's plans for industrial mobilisation, and in particular asked their advice on the matter of guarding against abuses?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question of which I have had no notice. The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEALS, SCHOOL CHILDREN (CIRCULAR 1443).

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the President of the Board o Education whether he is aware that Circular 1443 on meals for school children is not obtainable from His Majesty's, Stationery Office;


and whether, in view of the great interest taken in the subject he will make arrangements for copies to be available to the public?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): In view of the small number of requests that have been received from members of the public for additional copies of Circular 1443, which was issued for the guidance of local education authorities, I do not consider that I should be justified in asking His Majesty's Stationery Office to place it on sale. Copies of the Circular, however, can be supplied to local education authorities and recognised associations at the cost of 6d. for 25 copies.

Mr. BROOKE: Will Members of the House be supplied with copies?

Mr. STANLEY: If hon. Members wish to have copies, I shall be glad to see that they get them.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL (SUPPLY).

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of firms in the Midlands are experiencing difficulty in obtaining adequate deliveries of steel; and what steps is he taking to remedy this?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): A rapid increase in consumption of various steel products has resulted in some pressure on supplies, but I understand that the British Iron and Steel Federation are taking steps to remedy the position and are ready to investigate any case in which supplies are deficient.

Mr. BANFIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the interests of the smaller manufacturers are protected?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER ANNUATION ACT, 1922.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities that have put into operation the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1922, and the number of employés under such

local authorities that have accepted the scheme; and whether the Government have any intention of making the Act obligatory on local authorities?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Resolutions or agreements putting the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, into operation have been approved in the case of 1,079 local authorities. I have no definite information as to the number of officers and servants who are now subject to the provisions of the Act of 1922, but the number is believed to be approximately 270,000. I hope to be able to introduce amending legislation next Session and propose to discuss later with representatives of the interested parties the scope and details of the Measure.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to imply that the amending legislation tends to become compulsory?

Sir K. WOOD: I have anticipated that in the last part of my answer, in which I said that I proposed to discuss the exact scope of the details of the Measure with the persons concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE AIR MAIL.

Mr. W. R. DUCKWORTH: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state when the scheme for sending all Empire first-class mail by air at the rate of 1½d. per half-ounce will come into operation; and whether satisfactory arrangements have yet been made for the co-operation of Australia in this important scheme?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): It is hoped to commence the Empire Air Mail scheme by stages next year. As regards the second part of the question negotiations with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia are proceeding, but it would be premature to make any statement at the present time.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider in the course of the negotiations the great benefits which commerce would derive from a reduced postal charge on small packets of samples of cloth and other fabrics?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: That does not really arise out of the question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this matter and other matters affecting commerce in this country will be taken into consideration.

Mr. DAY: Will special light-weight envelopes be provided by the Post Office?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR SPIRIT.

Mr. W. R. DUCKWORTH: asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of motor spirit produced in this country in the year ended 31st December, 1935, by hydrogenation or low - temperature carbonisation processes, from coal or coal derivatives, from alcohol, shale, or from any other home source of supply; whether any, and, if so, how much, of this motor spirit is subject to taxation; and whether it is sold at the same or a lower price than imported motor spirit?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Statistics of the production of motor spirit in this country during 1935 from coal and shale or from derivatives of those substances are not yet available, but it is estimated that the production amounted to about 75,000,000 gallons. As regards the production of power alcohol in this country, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr. Holdsworth) on 12th March. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, motor spirit produced from coal and shale indigenous to this country is not subject to taxation, and so far as I am aware such motor spirit is sold at the same prices as similar grades of imported motor spirit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. A. REED: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Signor Alberto Hueyo is undertaking a financial mission to Britain with the approval of the Argentine Government; and will he take steps to insist, before Treasury sanction is given to any further loans to that country, that some satisfactory arrangement is made on behalf of British investors in respect of previous loans?

Mr. MORRISON: I am informed that the gentleman referred to is not undertaking any official mission, but is coming to this country on private business. As regards the latter part of the question, I should perhaps remind my hon. Friend that the external public debt of the Argentine Government has been fully met. As regards toe position of other Argentine securities I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 2nd March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG.

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken for the purpose of obtaining full particulars of British investments in Hong Kong?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It is impossible to ascertain the exact amount of British capital invested.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the question again? I ask whether any steps are being taken to ascertain these facts. Are any such steps being taken?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member knows that, in order to assist him, I wrote to him privately and asked him to tell me exactly what he meant. I have received a reply but I do not quite understand it now.

Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of that reply, may I say that in my opinion—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total Government expenditure since 1931 in the protection of British interests in Hong Kong?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that the lion. Member's question relates to expenditure on Imperial Defence. This expenditure is not under the control of the Colonial Office, but I am seeing whether the figures can be obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN LITERATURE (IMPORTATION).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether


he is aware that in certain cases anti-Fascist literature has recently been stopped from entering this country; whether any general instructions have been given as to preventing Italian literature from entering the country; and whether there is or has been any discrimination between Fascist and anti-Fascist literature in this respect?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am aware that two small postal packets of anti-Fascist leaflets printed in Italian were recently detained by the Customs pending the production of evidence in support of the contention that they did not come within the prohibition on goods of Italian origin. Such evidence has now been produced and the goods have been released. General instructions have, of course, been issued to prevent Italian goods within the scope of the prohibition from entering the country, but I would point out that there is an exemption in favour of newspapers, periodicals, printed books and printed music. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. SORENSEN: Can I have an assurance, then, from the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in fact, no discrimina-

Return for each of the years 1919 to 1935 inclusive, showing the number of boys of 9 years and under 18 years of age charged in Glasgow Courts with the following crimes, including attempts to commit same.


Year.
Theft.
Theft by House-breaking.
House-breaking with intent to steal.
Total.


Police Court.
Sheriff Court.
Total.
Sheriff Court.
Sheriff Court.



1919
…
876
128
1,004
434
69
1,507


1920
…
627
96
723
346
65
1,134


1921
…
884
149
1,033
305
55
1,393


1922
…
720
120
840
313
48
1,201


1923
…
980
103
1,083
291
75
1,449


1924
…
767
118
885
337
93
1,315


1925
…
839
137
976
212
26
1,214


1926
…
1,365
89
1,454
187
66
1,707


1927
…
917
96
1,013
230
40
1,283


1928
…
790
90
880
145
38
1,063


1929
…
1,025
132
1,157
159
52
1,368


1930
…
968
119
1,087
244
57
1,388


1931
…
971
110
1,081
406
97
1,584


1932
…
1,193
151
1,344
379
79
1,802


1933
…
1,264
88
1,352
499
133
1,984


1934
…
1,451
146
1,597
666
80
2,343


1935
…
1,515
150
1,665
694
85
2,444


Total
…
17,152
2,022
19,174
5,847
1,158
26,179

tion will be exercised between Fascist and anti-Fascist literature?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly, Sir. No such considerations arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

THEFTS AND BURGLARIES, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. McGOVERN): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of boys between nine and 18 years of age that have been charged in Glasgow courts with theft and burglary for each year from 1st January, 1919, to 1st January, 1936;
(2) The number of men and women, respectively, that have been charged in Glasgow sheriff courts with theft, burglary and shoplifting for each year from 1st January, 1919, to 1st January, 1936?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): As the answers to these questions involve tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the tables:

Return for each of the years 1919 to 1935 inclusive, showing the number of men and women of 18 years of age and over, charged before Glasgow Sheriff and Stipendiary Magistrate's Courts with the following crimes, including attempts to commit same


Year.
Theft.
Theft by Shoplifting.
Theft by Housebreaking.
Housebreaking with intent to steal.
Totals.


Sheriff Court.
Stipendiary Court
Sheriff Court.
Stipendiary Court.
Sheriff Court.
Sheriff Court.






Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Total.




1919
…
…
482
127
213
100
—
—
3
1
228
11
56
2
982
241
1,223


1920
…
…
665
128
163
76
—
1
1
2
298
17
117
6
1,244
230
1,474


1921
…
…
624
96
108
53
2
6
1
5
379
16
124
2
1,238
178
1,416


1922
…
…
544
103
103
49
5
20
7
5
300
18
146
1
1,105
196
1,301


1923
…
…
550
107
105
52
5
12
13
8
257
6
111
1
1,041
186
1,227


1924
…
…
470
115
94
44
5
5
14
16
183
10
73
1
839
191
1,030


1925
…
…
431
88
89
29
4
8
17
23
230
20
67
—
838
168
1,006


1926
…
…
493
81
115
35
3
2
15
25
290
14
85
4
1,001
161
1,162


1927
…
…
429
81
144
41
2
7
14
28
248
6
101
1
938
164
1,102


1928
…
…
407
69
105
31
2
6
14
36
237
10
89
1
854
153
1,007


1929
…
…
420
61
122
34
2
7
27
73
271
7
116
—
958
182
1,140


1930
…
…
441
58
175
36
2
3
33
111
315
10
104
1
1,070
219
1,289


1931
…
…
454
48
212
35
3
8
40
230
566
16
162
—
1,437
337
1,774


1932
…
…
512
81
199
30
6
5
52
241
583
22
134
1
1,486
380
1,866


1933
…
…
450
62
230
42
2
11
37
310
695
11
179
—
1,593
436
2,029


1934
…
…
436
38
241
44
3
11
39
261
599
6
113
3
1,431
363
1,794


1935
…
…
419
55
237
50
4
12
41
223
496
12
106
1
1,303
353
1,656



Total
…
8,227
1,398
2,665
781
50
124
368
1,598
6,175
212
1,883
25
19,358
4,138
23,496


NOTE.—Shoplifting cases are not included in the Theft figures.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN (for Mr. McGOVERN): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount of land purchased by the Glasgow Corporation for housing purposes since December, 1918; the price for each separate estate; the price per acre; and from whom each purchase was made?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am sending the hon. Member a statement containing the information asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the projected legislative council in Palestine?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply which I gave on 11th March to a question by my hon. Friend, the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of the fact that a great movement has been going on throughout the country against this projected legislative council, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply and give the House an opportunity of discussing this very important question?

Mr. THOMAS: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not even read the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine). If he reads that reply he will see that I promised such an opportunity. I said that this matter was one that could be discussed. If he reads the reply he will see the promise which I made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES, WHITEHALL.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW (for Mr. BRACKEN): asked the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed to publish the plan and designs of the new block of Government offices to be erected on the site of Whitehall Gardens; and whether a model and drawings will be placed in the Tea Room for inspection by hon. Members?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have

arranged with the authorities concerned that there shall be available in the Tea Room to-morrow afternoon, for inspection by hon. Members, a perspective drawing, two architectural elevations, and a model of the new building, together with a block plan.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will not give his approval to the construction on that site of any building the elevation of which conflicts in style with those already existing in Whitehall?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see to-morrow that this building does not come up to the frontage in Whitehall. It is to be behind the trees now in front of Montagu House, but it would be very difficult to say what would or would not conflict with the surrounding buildings owing to the variety of styles in Whitehall. I think he had much better wait until be can see the drawings and the proposed elevation tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (GOVERNMENT RAILWAY).

Mr. MATHERS (for Mr. LATHAN): asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that discontent has arisen among the staff of the Newfoundland Government Railway by reason of the refusal of the chairman of the Commission of Government to recognise and negotiate with the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, Freight Handlers, and Station Employés, a properly constituted and established trade union, although it has been shown that the union has in membership no less than 82 per cent. of the staff concerned; that it is fully recognised by the managements of the Canadian railways, and that recognition has been conceded to and agreements made with similar organisations acting for other sections of the staff of the Newfoundland railway; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to inviting the chairman of the Commission to reconsider his decision?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have no information on the matter, but am asking the Governor for a report.

Mr. MATHERS: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend can vouch for the information indicated in the question, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that here is a prima facie case of something that should meet with his disapproval?

Mr MacDONALD: I am asking for a full explanation so that I may consider the matter. Until I have that information, obviously I cannot say anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. LEACH: I would like to make a personal explanation arising out of a reply given to me this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I understood him to say that the practice of employing margarine in the Air Force was inaugurated by the first Labour Government, and as that affects the time when I happened to hold the same position as he now occupies, I take the matter seriously. I want to say to you, Sir, and to the Under-Secretary of State that his information is not accurate. I am quite sure he has no desire to mislead either you or the House, but he has been misinformed. No change in the matter of diet to the Air Force took place during that régime. I have, of course, considerable regret that I myself did not make a change in favour of butter during that period, and to that extent I admit neglect, but the matter was never raised.

Sir P. SASSOON: I am very sorry I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman made his last point. He gave me no notice of it. Therefore, as I had not the privilege of hearing what he said, it is difficult for me to make any comment upon it. If it was in connection with my remarks in regard to margarine, I will look into the whole thing, and if there is anything that I should withdraw, of course I will. Anyhow, the matter was very carefully considered by the Labour Government at that time, and they had every opportunity of changing over to butter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister if there is any change in the arrangements for To-morow's business.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we purpose taking the Navy Estimates first, on the Report stage, then the Air Estimates, and then the Army Estimates. We hope to obtain these Report stages in time to take the Third Reading of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill.

Mr. EDE: And rise by 11 o'clock?

BILL PRESENTED.

MIDWIVES BILL,

"to amend the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1926," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

CLUBS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. BARR: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare and amend the law relating to the registration and conduct of clubs in Scotland.
The law of registration and conduct relating to clubs in Scotland is contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act of 1903, and in the Temperance (Scotland) Act of 1913. The sheriff is the registration authority, and all applications to the sheriff must in the case of county areas be signed by two members of the licensing court or two members of the court of appeal, or one member from each of these courts, and in the case of burghs by two magistrates or two representatives of the appeal court, or one of each of these courts. The certificate signed by these two possessing that authority must be that the club is a bona fide club and that it is not to exist mainly for the supply of excisable liquors. The sheriff grants or refuses the application and the grant runs for a period of 12 months, after which it must be renewed or lapse. The sheriff has a discretion that is limited. The only grounds on which he can receive objections or refuse either registration or renewal of registration are such as, for example, that the number in the club is under 25, that the premises are not convenient or suitable, that it exists mainly as a drinking club, and that it contravenes certain rules that are laid down for the conduct of clubs.
Notwithstanding these safeguards a good many excesses have appeared, and it is to remove these that this Bill is to be presented, if the House will so agree. The main points in this new Bill that I propose to present are, first, that the licensing court should be the registration authority, and that is with a view to co-ordinating the authorities for the supply or sale of excisable liquor, whether by a public house or by a club. Subject to certain qualifications embodied in the provisions of the Bill, the discretion of the court to order a renewal or refusal will be a full discretion. A very important Clause is this, that a club must be in bona fide operation without registration for one year before it can be registered. That is to prevent the uprising of the drinking club or the bogus club. In the next place, if a public house has been dispossessed of its licence, if it is on premises where a licence has been forfeited, where it has not been renewed, or where it has lapsed, a club cannot go in to take up these premises and run its operations for a period of five years.
All clubs have to be subject to the permitted hours applicable to licensed premises in the area, except of course in relation to those resident in the club. One of the most vital provisions is that no club is to be registered in a no-licence area and no new club can be registered in a limitation area. The sense of fairness and the strength of public opinion have enabled us in Scotland in the larger number of no-licence areas to keep clubs from coming there. In many cases they have been unable to get the two signatures that are necessary for the registration of a club. I will give the House an illustration, showing the strength of opinion. In Kilsyth, which is a mining area, and has had no-licence since 1920, they could never get two magistrates or two of the Appeal Court to sign the application for a club. There came to be a vacancy in the Appeal Court and a man who was favourable to signing for a club was put up as a candidate. An anti-club nominee was put up against him. The anti-club nominee received from the Justices of the Peace 27 votes, and the candidate in favour of a club received only seven votes. That did not mean that these Justices were teetotallers, but that they thought it would be most inequitable, when they had voted for no-licence

by the artificial and large majority necessary, that clubs should be brought in to annul the people's decision.
Sometimes a sheriff has come to our rescue. The sheriff cancelled the registration of two or three clubs in the White-inch Ward of Glasgow, which is a no-licence area. It appeared that in one of these clubs in that dry area there was spent in the 14 months it had been in existence £5,281 on excisable liquor, and only £64 on food. We were not always, however, so fortunate. For example in the town of Wick, which is a no-licence area, two clubs in particular received fresh authority and fresh registration at the hands of the sheriff-principal. One of them—the Caithness Club—was spending on excisable liquors 89 per cent. of its expenditure; and the other, with a membership of 142, was spending the large sum of £3,362 in a year. Yet these clubs were continued. In asking that there should be no clubs possible in a no-licence area we are only reverting to a Clause inserted by the Scottish Grand Committee on 11th June, 1912, to the following effect, namely:
Excisable liquor may be supplied or sold in a registered club to any member thereof only on the days on which, and during the hours within which, liquor may be supplied or sold in public houses within the areas.
That was defeated on the Report stage, but not without expression of opinion from all parts of the House that a great anomaly was being created. I might here quote Viscount Cecil of Chelwood—Lord Robert Cecil, Member for the Hitchin Division, as he then was—who on 9th October, 1912, said:
It was a grotesque absurdity to say that any no-licence resolution should have no effect on clubs.
There must be many in the House who do not approve of the policy of no-licence who will yet hold that it is inequitable and unfair, after no-licence had been carried by the inflated and artificial majorities necessary, that the area should be flooded with clubs. Should it be my privilege at a later stage to read the names of those who are backing this Bill, it will be seen that it is supported in most quarters of the House. The other day it was remitted to the Home Secretary to make research into this subject of clubs, and I am most anxious that we


should get this Bill for his study. He will find it a perfect compendium in regard to the subject of clubs. The Secretary of State for Scotland has done me the great kindness of writing to me to-day expressing his regret that he will not be present. I know that he is just bursting to know what is in this Bill, and he, too, has to make research. I cannot conceive that this honourable House will stand between me and the valuable and helpful gift which I desire to hand over to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barr, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Mathers, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Edmund Findlay. Mr. McKie, Mr. Foot, Mr. Maclay, and Sir Archibald Sinclair.

CLUBS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to declare and amend the law relating to the registration and conduct of clubs in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 31st March, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bedford Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bury And District Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chester and Derby) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mid-Sussex Joint Hospital District) Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Miss Ward; and

had appointed in substitution: Mr. Clement Davies.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill: Captain Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Drewe, Mr. Duggan, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Lee, Sir Joseph McConnell, Mr. McEntee, Mr. MacLaren, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Orr-Ewing, Major Rayner, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SHORTER HOURS OF LABOUR.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. SORENSEN: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when the normal working week should be substantially reduced, in order to allow the workers to benefit from the increased productivity of modern industry; and this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation in accordance with the convention adopted by the International Labour Conference of 1935, with a view to giving effect to a reduction of hours of employment without reduction of weekly earnings.
According to the old Jewish legend of creation our foreparents were driven from Eden into the world of Clydeside, Downing Street and Poplar with the curse that with the sweat of their brows they should eat bread. I understand that a supplementary curse was laid upon them to the effect that henceforth he who did not work should not eat. This is a combination which this Government does its best to see more than unpleasantly fulfilled. Since that time it has been accepted by the great majority of people that hard toil must be for ever the lot of the ordinary man. Yet there has been a wistful belief, sustained through the past and existing to-day, that sometime this curse of toil may be released, for a fact that we must recognise is that according to Scriptural evidence even the Creator had a day off after He had completed his labours. That in itself is symbolic of the belief many possess, that what increasingly matters in these days is not so much the quantity of labour as the value of that labour and the object for which we do labour. Men and women are coming more and more to appreciate that in these days it may be possible so to organise our economic and social resources as at last to be able to release man for his real fulfilment.
The Church in the middle ages established the principle of holy days, for the recreation of soul and body, and in that way established the fact that man indeed does not live by bread alone. Yet we must admit that for many centuries hard economic necessity has driven us to meet the claim of hunger, tyrannical fecundity, war and the State. In the last 150 years of the industrial revolution, through the elevation of the machine, it has become possible for man to get his own back on that primitive curse and perhaps at

long last to be released from the tyranny of toil. By means of his inventive genius, man is now able to increase the productivity of the soil and the effect of his own labour. When in the "dark Satanic mills" looms were erected in Lancashire, they were looked upon by many at the time as being the source out of which there would flow an ever-expanding flood of wealth which could be enjoyed not merely by the few but by the great bulk of mankind. Unfortunately a new addition to the primitive curse seemed to fall on the great mass of the people. They were hired together in congested towns and choked with sulphur and carbon, and gained very little from the achievement of this new agency of wealth production. Man in fact became freshly enslaved—enslaved no longer to primitive necessity but this time to mechanical necessity. The ancient curse, that claimed it should continue to the third and fourth generation, did indeed seem to be vindicated by the passage of years.
The cry of the writer of the last century, that "Men must work and women must weep," even now, though somewhat modified, still seems to be true of the great majority of the people in our land. Yet from the early days of the last century there were efforts being made, some of them successful, towards mitigating the harshness of the more severe burdens that rested on the backs of the masses of working-class people. Robert Owen, to whom not nearly sufficient tribute has been paid and who indeed preceded Lord Shaftesbury in his work for factory legislation, must be honoured as one who did lay down the principle of the eight hours day and within certain limitations tried to apply it to his own factory, and in particular to the 500 children who were employed in the mills of which he was the manager. It is true that Robert Owen become discouraged by the hostility that was shown towards his effort, but it is well to remember that his agitation on behalf of the limitation of hours in factories involved proposals for the limitation of hours for young people under the age of 18 to a maximum of 10½, no night work for young people under 18 and the abolition of all child labour for those under 10.
It is true that we have gone a long way from that time and that there are to-day


many who are enjoying much shorter hours of labour; but I would remind the House that essentially the same kind of opposition that was shown towards Owen and Shaftesbury when they were trying to reduce the hours of labour is to-day being shown towards the demand now being made for a much more drastic reduction of the hours of labour, in view of the greater mechanical skill and equipment that are now at our command. Arguments were frequently used in those days, based on religious conviction on the one hand and on pseudo-scientific opinion on the other, that it would be a gross interference with the laws of God and man to try to reduce the hours even of the wretched children of five and six years of age who were taken from the poorhouses and the workhouses of England and Scotland to toil for their masters in the mills.
No Member of this House would dream to-day of advancing so crude an opposition to our claim for shorter hours of labour. They would now admit that their predecessors were in the wrong. But I suggest that in course of time possibly the same reluctance that many hon. Members have to assist in the still further reduction of hours of labour, will seem to be as stupid and blind as we now see the hostility of those who opposed Owen and Shaftesbury to have been. It is interesting to observe how, during the last century, the masters and employers in our industrial system constantly rung the changes between religious and economic arguments against shorter hours of labour. On the one hand they argued that it was a Divine dispensation that we should work by the sweat of our brows, and that idleness and thriftlessness and degeneration would prevail if there was any lightening of that burden. On the other hand they would frequently argue that it was necessary for the great mass of people thus to toil, and that otherwise there would not be sufficient produced for man's needs. Carlyle on one occasion said:
There is always hope in a man that actually and earnestly works. In idleness alone is there perpetual despair.
That certainly can be said very truthfully of the condition of some of the 2,000,000 who are plunged into undesired unemployment. But it also illustrates the attitude of a very large number of people in

the Victorian era, who held firmly that life existed for work rather than work for life. Fortunately we are now coming to see that in fact our aim is to live and not to work, and that our task should be to minimise the amount of obligatory and compulsory toil in order that the richer capacities of mankind may have their complete fulfilment.
It is well to realise that many of these arguments, based on a scientific foundation years ago, no longer hold good. There was some truth in the contention in previous years that in fact there was not enough to go round, in view of increasing population from age to age; but I would point out what perhaps many hon. Members now realise, that on every hand there has been an almost staggering increase both of production and wealth. According to the League of Nations figures, from 1913 to 1929 the world production of food and raw materials increased by 28 per cent., whilst the world population increased by only 10 per cent. Those figures alone demonstrate and vindicate my contention that to-day the real problem confronting us is no longer the age-long problem of scarcity, but the problem of abundance. I suggest that there would be no problem if we were wise in organising our human affairs, that the ancient curse of toil could be released and man at last could have some measure of real freedom. The Macmillan Committee Report pointed out that the output by the workers of this country had increased in five years by something like 11 per cent., and an investigation made in the United States in 35 particular factories revealed that between 1919 and 1927 the increased productivity per head was 74 per cent.
In view of that I have surely made out a prima facie case for the contention that the time is overdue when the hours of labour should be still further and drastically scaled down, and that man at least should have that leisure without which he cannot be truly himself. It is quite true that owing to the beneficial activity of the trade unions, a number of agreements now exist and that the workers have very materially reaped the benefit of this increased production. In a number of industries the trade unions have secured a maximum 48-hour week and in some industries a 42-hour week. That has been done by the constant pressure of the trade unions. Had it not


been for that activity the reluctance, and in fact the hostility, of ill-informed employers and business men in this country would not have allowed this leisure to be enjoyed by the mass of the people. Legislatively we have already admitted the principle of shorter hours of labour. The miners have secured a shorter working day compared with years ago. But there are many Members in this House who at the time did their utmost to prevent that reduction of the miners' working day. Had they succeeded I suggest that to-day the volume of unemployment in the mining industry would be much greater even than it is. I would bear tribute to the efforts and work of men like the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) respecting early closing of shops, who in thus encouraging shorter hours has undoubtedly assisted in some measure towards creating a conviction that we could have and should have more hours of leisure.
At the same time, although undoubtedly, as compared with 50, 40 or 30 years ago, the great mass of people are working shorter hours, frequently that gain is woefully deceptive. Much in fact has also been lost in the shortening of hours. There is the increased strain that many workpeople feel, and, secondly, there is the extra travelling which they have to undertake in order to get to their places of occupation. I live in an outer London suburb. Every day there is a multitude of my own electors, as well as others from an adjoining constituency, who have to scramble for buses and trams and trains and experience a nervous strain for an hour before they start work—a strain which counterbalances any benefit they may get from shorter hours of labour. In addition to that, once they have formed the component parts of a human caterpillar and descended into a train or boarded a bus they find that frequently they have to stand like a lot of humanised Ostend rabbits packed together in boxes while they are dragged up to London. There may be Members of this House who know what it is to stand in a train on one leg or to stand on someone else's foot for half an hour or so, breathing heavily down someone else's neck or someone else breathing heavily down their necks, trying to read a newspaper, while others are perhaps engaged in the custom beloved of ladies, of "two purl and one plain."
Those who have that experience realise the difficulties under which thousands of working people, both black-coated and others, are living to-day. That toil has been added to the working day. In some localities there are inhabitants who have to travel for an hour and a-half or two hours before they start work. One must realise that the shorter working day which exists now is accompanied by these two factors, first, greater strain following upon speeding up and the rationalisation process in industry, and, secondly, the longer hours of travel which are imposed as workers are driven farther out into the suburbs and away from the centre of London, and farther away from their work in other parts of the country. In that way many of the gains of the shorter working day have been lost, and many, indeed, would be inclined to agree to working an extra hour a day if only they could be relieved of some of the burden of extra travel and strain which they now bear. On the other hand, we have to admit this appalling fact: In spite of this being an age of abundance, in spite of it being admitted, in principle at least, that we could now substantially reduce the working day, in spite of the admission by some of the more enlightened members of great firms and great monopolies that the working day could be reduced to six or even five hours, we have a terrible reflection on our intelligence in the form of 2,000,000 unemployed in this country alone, in addition to those now in work who are constantly worried lest the spectre of unemployment should visit their homes. In this connection I would draw attention to an interesting observation made by the editor of the Conservative Sunday newspaper the "Observer." That particular melancholy prophet, writing in 1933, said:
Science has raised the capacity of output a thousandfold.
I should have thought that was a slight exaggeration, but it is not for me to question the convictions of a Conservative editor.
The machine is dispensing wholesale with human assistance, and the workless and the wageless cannot buy the goods it would provide …. A huge proportion of those can never be re-absorbed so long as invention and organisation continue the supplanting of human labour …. Plenty and Poverty are facing each other, with a gulf between.


Apparently the writer has no solution for the problem. All he can offer to this tragic army of unwanted human beings is the prospect of being thrown into the social dustbin and left there. Apparently it does not occur to him, or if it does he does not mention it, that the right path to take is not to plunge hundreds of thousands into unnecessary leisure but to spread out the leisure so that all can have a chance of enjoying the harvest of modern skill, modern science and modern invention. If we are educating the younger generation in some of the values and qualities of life we cannot expect them to anticipate with any pleasure the prospect of becoming mere machine slaves like their forefathers. The greater the stimulus applied to the human mind the more discontented they will be if converted merely into cogs in a great machine. The cumulative effect of education has been to inspire an increasing number of people with a demand for opportunities still further to expand their minds.
It is alleged, however, that shorter hours of labour are impossible because of competition coming from countries with longer hours and lower wage standards. Shorter hours in this country would mean, it is argued, that the costs of production would be increased, that we should be put at an economic disadvantage as compared with our competitors and trade would be lost. Before I sit down I may have a word to say on that aspect of the matter, but meanwhile I would point out that whatever may be the case in the expert trade, that argument cannot apply with anything like the same force to trades producing goods for home consumption. Further, it may be argued that one concern cannot reduce the hours of labour unless the rest do so. That is all the more reason why legislation should be introduced to secure shorter hours of labour for all. It may also be argued that even if shorter hours of labour were introduced no net increase in employment would be provided. That might be so up to a point, but it need not be so. Certainly there could be more employment at lower wages, but I repudiate emphatically that solution.
Some hon. Members in this House have argued that the solution of our present difficulties would be found in share the

work and share the wages, but that is a proposal none of us would welcome, and I assert that it is completely unnecessary. If we lowered the hours of labour it would, in fact, lead to more employment rather than less, but we should then throw upon the present masters of industry the onus of finding means by which they could counterbalance the alleged increase in productive costs, means by which they could produce more and at the same time employ more in that greater production. I admit that under the capitalist system this might lead to an aggravation of an already existing problem, because without increasing consumption an increase in production would simply make confusion worse confounded; but that, of course, only makes more apparent the grave difficulties and inherent contradictions in our present social system.
Turning to the contention that on account of foreign competition we cannot reduce hours of labour, here I would remind hon. Members that efforts have constantly been made through the International Labour Office to secure stronger support for the principle of a drastic reduction of hours of labour than the Government of the day has been prepared to give. At Geneva last year the International Labour Office put on record that it was possible to reduce the hours of labour to as low as 90 per week. Can the Government really assure the House that they have done all they could have done towards implementing that recommendation? I am afraid they cannot. I know it has been said that there have not been sufficient safeguards against a reduction in the standard of living, but when I look through a recent publication issued by the Government I am impressed by the fact that the whole attitude of the Government's representatives has been a negative one. Again Sand again they emphasise difficulties; never do they propose ways by which the difficulties can be overcome. We have heard of "Yes" men who are complacent supporters of Governments, but in this case we have supporters of a Government who can say nothing else than "No" on this question of shortening hours.
On that ground alone I suggest that the present Government should make an infinitely greater attempt to meet the desires of other Governments, as well as of the organised workers, for a mutual


agreement for the reduction of working hours throughout the world, or in as many countries as will agree to it, but to be accompanied by no reduction in the standard of life. I am convinced that if a strong lead had been given by this Government, if there had been helpfulness instead of unhelpfulness, if they had been positive instead of negative, we should have had a much richer response than has been forthcoming. Even the representatives of certain other Governments at the International Labour Office last year were disgusted with the negativist attitude of our own Government, and expressed that view. I am certain myself that behind the scenes are many who are not anxious to see the shorter working week or the shorter working day. My purpose in moving this Motion is to secure an expression of opinion from hon. Members on all sides that the Government should regard this matter as being as important as the subject which was discussed on Monday and Tuesday of last week. What is the value of military, naval, and air defence if we are so fascinated by steel and all the impedimenta of war that we forget that life is more important than death and preparations for the expansion of life of far greater importance that the preparations for the expansion of death?
To turn back to trades and services which are not affected by international competition, I would remind the House that only some two or three weeks ago the hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) declared that he would like to see the Government supporting the principle of shorter hours of work. He said it would bring some of the benefits of mechanisation to the workers, and suggested that the Government might start by introducing the five-day week into the Post Office. I should like to know whether the Government will take that advice. The hon. Member for Aldershot cannot be accused of having great sympathies with us on this side of the House, but he realised that the Government could set an example. There is no excuse for the Government not doing so. The Post Office has this year a surplus, gained, perhaps, by rather shady means, and the Government could afford to introduce the shorter working week. That would increase employment and at the same time bring more leisure to the workers, and perhaps the country as a

whole would profit by the example set in that way.
There is much more that I could have said on this vital question, but I feel that many Members in the House really do realise that although there are grave difficulties in the way of a further progressive reduction of hours of labour under capitalism yet nevertheless it would be one way in which two problems at least could be partially dealt with. One is the problem of finding increased employment. I am not over emphasising that, because I know it is difficult, but in some measure, at least, it has been implicitly agreed that it would absorb some fraction of the unemployed. Personally, I would emphasise far more the benefits that would come to the workers still in employment of a greater and fuller chance to live.
I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place this afternon, though I understand the reason for his absence, and I should like the representative of the Ministry of Labour who is present to convey this appeal to the Minister. I know that he is not a Diehard, although there are Diehards supporting him, and I trust that he is not a Live-soft. As a matter of fact, he works hard and strenuously and I am sure there is a great strain on his body and his mind and, I would even say, under the circumstances, on his conscience. I would ask him to use all his influence with Members on his side of the House, in particular those who are more sympathetic to his point of view than others, to persuade the Government to take a wiser, more sympathetic and more determined course on this question. If they did that, if they could be helpful instead of unhelpful, constructive instead of destructive, I am sure that, internationally, we should be able to lead the world towards reduced hours of labour, and that nationally they would be setting an example to those employers in this country who are not particularly affected by international trade. For the sake of the greater fulfilment of human life, and in order that men and women may feel that life is not merely a prison but that they may exercise their creative capacity, I beg the House to support this Motion, and to do so with the conviction that in this age of abundance it is only stupidity and blindness that will prevent us from


harvesting the leisure which that abundance now makes possible.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I beg to second the Motion.
I will confine myself to the first part of the Motion, which states:
The normal working week should be substantially reduced in order to allow the workers to benefit from the increased productivity of modern industry.
The reason for so doing is that hon. Members on this side of the House who are connected with big industrial organisations, or who have had the benefit of attending International Labour conferences at Geneva, hope to take part in the Debate. Professor Keynes wrote many years ago a book entitled "The Economic Consequences of the Peace Treaty," and in the light of the present international situation that book is well worth re-reading. He described industry as being like a top, because, in order that industry might maintain its equilibrium, it has to be continually whipped as one would whip a top. The whipping consists in increased productivity, new regulations, the development of combines and, finally, the development of monopoly. Some of us are relatively young, but in our time we have seen great changes in industry in the direction of improving the position of monopoly. Industry has become stabilised and has increased its total profits, and while it is true that in the published returns, after company meetings, profits may seem to be small, yet the workpeople have to make profits on more debenture share stock than ever. More fixed capital is going into industry, and the result is that the total accumulated profit is greater than ever.
That has been brought about in the main by the intensified exploitation of human labour, new methods of production and the application of scientific methods, such as piece work, the conveyor system, welfare schemes and the latest micromotion method of production. This enables trained managers or their representatives to take a motion film of people working, and, by examination of the film, to cut out unnecessary operations and maintain the rhythm of work so as to get the maximum production out of the people

employed. Who has benefited from all this? World productivity has increased 20 per cent. from 1914 to 1924, and there has been a further increase since then, according to the Macmillan Committee Report. That is particularly so in Great Britain where, since 1914, there has also been a great increase in unemployment. It is no use blaming this man or that man, as some people do, or using invective or making vague sweeping statements regarding the position. Let us confine ourselves to the facts.
Let us first take the railways. As a result of the introduction of sentinel engines, shunting can low be operated with one man. As a result of quick steaming boilers and super-heating methods, large economies are taking place in the employment of labour, the consumption of coal and the use of water. Most hon. Members will be familiar with large concrete coal chutes that are now being put up in all industrial centres, and which stand there as a monument to the fact that, on the average, 30 men have been thrown out of employment by the adoption of those chutes. There is the introduction of trains which one man can control. Within a few miles of where I live there is a length of railway track which had six signal boxes until the latest electrically operated signal system was installed. There are now only two signal boxes. Signals and points are now worked by electrical power, and in place of the semaphore arms by day and red and green lights at night, the four-coloured-light system is now used for the guidance of drivers by day and by night. The number of levers to be operated under the old system was 332, and under the new system 187. In each signal box there is an illuminated diagram on which can be plainly seen the movement of every train.
In 1913, 618,000 men were employed on the railways. In 1921 there were 736,000, but in 1935 only 597,000 men. In 1926, 13,000 employés were discharged from the railways; in 1927, 6,000; in 1928, 25,000; in 1929, 41,000; in 1931, 18,000; and in 1932, 31,000. Year by year the numbers employed were reduced and the degree of exploitation of each man employed was intensified, yet the hours of labour remained the same. In 1931, five men worked where six had worked in 1921, and by 1934 four men worked where five men had worked in 1931. The engine drivers


employed in 1921 numbered 73,000, and in 1934, 63,900. The shunters in 1921 numbered 19,100, and in 1931, 16,300. Here we get to the tragedy of the position. For every three cleaners employed in 1921 only one is now employed. For every four guards in 1921 there are now only three, and for every two porters there is now only one. During the same period, 28,000 clerks and 27,000 artisans have been discharged. The same can be said in respect of the iron foundries and offices.
Hon. Members who have visited the Business Efficiency Exhibition will have seen the latest methods of typewriting and duplicating, accounting and calculating by machine, enabling a girl fresh from school to get through 40 times the amount of work which would have been done by her grandfather. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland said, on 22nd March, 1931, that when a certain American firm opened a factory in England they found that the output in this country was five per cent. greater than the output in an American factory. My hon. Friend who introduced the Motion dealt with the employers' point of view regarding the effect of a Measure of this kind upon the costs of production, and he rightly pointed it out, because we are bound to be concerned with it, yet here are a captain of industry and an experienced politician stating that an American firm found that they are able to obtain five per cent. more production here than in America. I have familiarised myself with the facts of increased production in the mining industry, but as there are hon. Members who are directly connected with that industry and desire to take part in the Debate I do not intend to deal with the mining industry.
According to the "Star" of 14th January, 1932, the number of employés employed per week per car manufactured at the Austin Motor Works, had fallen in the following way—and these are startling figures which deserve the attention of all who are interested in industrial affairs: In 1922, the employés per car manufactured were 55, in 1923 they were 24; in 1924, 20; in 1925, 17; and in 1927, 10. There have been increases in production since that year, and fewer men are employed per car produced. That has meant a greater output per man employed, and has at the same time produced more unemployment. The machines

displaced men and the men employed utilised more human energy than ever. Those who cannot obtain employment are having to be satisfied with signing on at the Employment Exchanges. Those are some of the economic facts of the increase in productivity.

Mr. BAXTER: Is it not true that the Austin Motor Works employ very many more men in the total? I do not know. I simply ask for information.

Mr. SMITH: The hon. Member is right to intervene with a question which concerns the accuracy of my figures, and I do not blame him for his intervention. It is true that more men are employed, but we must remember that they are in an expanding industry. Capital is being put into the industry, and there is an ever growing demand for cars. The point I was making is that, per man employed, the production is greater than ever it was. I have come straight out of industry. I have spent 25 years in industry and have come straight into this House, and I know the effect upon the physique of increased exploitation of this kind.

Mr. BAXTER: Employment is not reduced by that system.

Mr. SMITH: I wish I had the opportunity of dealing with the fallacious argument which the hon. Member is putting forward, but there is no time to deal with it now, and I want to confine myself to the Resolution. I have stated the economic facts, which cannot be doubted. Some people, like the hon. Member opposite, may say that in the old days machines caused more employment, and I agree, but in those days there was an ever-expanding market and an ever-increasing purchasing power. In these days the position is reversed; our markets are contracting, and the purchasing power of the masses is also contracting, with the result that there is this unequal development within the present social system, which will gradually throttle it unless the masses of the people throughout the world take steps to deal with the problem. Productivity is ever expanding, and all this is giving rise to monopoly development, to quotas, tariff's and restrictions, and it is giving rise to the political policy which is being carried out by the National Government.
Sir Charles Manner, speaking at a meeting of the Incorporated Sales


Manager's Association, estimated that the adoption of the 40-hour week in Great Britain would result in the employment of at least 500,000 more men. If a 40-hour week were adopted, it would find additional employment in the shipbuilding industry, in London alone, for 1,000 men, in the South-East for another 1,000, in the South-West for 3,130, in the Midlands, in employment on the engines, for 35, in the North-West for 2,170, on the North-East Coast for 2,510 and so on. In the shipbuilding industry alone, the adoption of the 40-hour week would result in additional employment for 13,695 workers. The time has arrived when it is reasonable to expect that the Government of the day should support the adoption of the 40-hour week. The time has arrived when the masses of the people should benefit by the great increase in productivity by having more leisure as a result of a reduction of working hours. But what is the philosophy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—not all of them, but some of them? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, was present as chief guest at a British Glass Convention held some time ago, when Sir Max Bonn spoke, and this is his philosophy:
There is no security against the sabotage of the inventive mind. Our progress has cursed us with excess capacity due to enlargement of plant or increased productivity per existing unit. Short of a marked increase in demand and the practical exclusion of foreign ware, I foresee that our present state of technical efficiency will lead to a downhill race for us all.
What a theory, what a tragedy, when captains of industry, responsible men holding important positions in industry, are prepared to accept a fatalistic philosophy of that description. Their policy is a negative policy; our policy is the only positive and constructive policy that is now before the public of this country for dealing with this increase in productivity. They destroy Nature's supplies; they take steps to impede production; they prevent the masses of the people from consuming what man is able to produce; they prevent people from obtaining Nature's supplies in abundance. What man can produce, man ought to have an opportunity of consuming.
Our forefathers, particularly in the part of the country where I was born, were known as the Luddites. They smashed

the machines, because machines in those days threw them out of employment. We welcome the machines, but we want to use our intelligence to control them for man's benefit. The legal right is now being sought to scrap machines, to do what our forefathers were put in prison for doing. National Shipbuilding Securities has been formed, and now a Bill is going through the House with the object of scrapping spindles in the cotton spinning industry. Methods of restricting and impeding development are being introduced to an extent that was undreamt of a few years ago. A labour-saving device in a factory is a labour-starving device. An electric cleaner or a Ewbank carpet sweeper in our humble homes is looked upon as a blessing. Surely the time has arrived when all machines should be looked upon as a blessing by the people who are called upon to manage them. This can only be brought about by reducing the hours of labour and finding employment for more men. I admit that we have made some progress.
I want to refer to the fact that in the past His Majesty's Government have been satisfied with allowing a Civil servant to represent them at the International Labour Office. I do not want to say anything, and it is not my custom to say anything, about anyone who is not present, but I do want to say that surely, at important international conferences, we ought to be represented by a Cabinet Minister, who can accept full responsibility for the whole policy, rather than by a evil servant, as we have been in the past. This county has given a lead to the world in the development of social services throughout fie generations, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to continue to give that lead in the direction of the universal adoption of the 40-hour week.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
hours of labour should only be reduced where it is practicable to maintain existing earnings in the industries affected, and, since the draft convention of 1935 does not safeguard this principle, this House does not approve of legislation based upon it.


I am in some difficulty, after the speeches of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), not only because they give me the feeling that I am living in the world of Mr. H. G. Wells, but also because, although the hon. Members have placed a rather specific Motion on the Order Paper, neither of them mentioned the proceedings of the International Labour Organisation in 1935. Those proceedings were extremely interesting, and they have a very great bearing upon this discussion. They were just mentioned by the hon. Member who moved the Motion, but he did not go into a single one of the points raised at that conference, or mention a single speech. He dealt with the matter entirely in generalities. I admit that our task to-day—and I am going to end up with an appeal to the Government on this subject, because I believe I am moving a constructive, and not a destructive Amendment—our task to-day is complicated by the fact that we have insufficient data. We have a mountainous mass of data, but it is insufficient, and much of it is tendentious. We have things like the P.E.P. research, and we have the industrial surveys of the universities; we have the tendentious opinions of certain economists, sometimes engaged in putting forward party opinions, sometimes not; but we have not any real, co-ordinated evidence on which we can deal with this most complicated question in all its aspects.
In moving my Amendment I am going to try to study this question from the aspect of what was passed at the International Labour Organisation's Conference at Geneva last year, and I want to try to make to the House four points about that conference. The Draft Convention was not definitely consistent with the maintenance of weekly earnings. I am not quite certain whether the Mover of the Motion had that fact in mind or not, because he spoke about work-sharing. The second point that I want to make is that the convention applies to average hours over a period, and not simply to the working hours of the week itself. Then I want to enter into some speculation as to the consequences of Government regulation of hours, and whether hon. Members opposite, any more than we, would desire those consequences. Finally, I want to mention the probable effects on certain trades, and to make

what I think will be constructive proposals to the Government.
The Draft Convention has a very interesting history. It was proposed by the Italians, it was a general convention on principle alone, and it was put into last year's agenda after three previous attempts had been made to get a more specific convention. The British workers' representative, when the Draft Convention came up, failed to secure the insertion of the phrase "maintenance of earnings" in addition to the phrase "standard of living." The Italian delegate made it perfectly clear that Italian wages had been reduced when their hours had been reduced, and that he desired to reserve the right to make further reductions. I shall return to that point in a moment. The Secretary-General of the Conference, after the Convention had been passed, said this:
In strict law the Convention does not imply any obligation on any nation to take any action as regards the shortening of hours until it ratifies the separate conventions.
Those are separate conventions applying to various industries which were afterwards discussed. I would like to make two observations on that. Quite clearly there has been no uniformity as between country and country under such general terms as those, and moreover I think it is only fair to mention—I do not want to be fatuous—that of the 27 Governments who voted in favour of the Draft Convention, 18 have not ratified yet the Washington Hours Convention passed 16 years ago. [Interruption.] Nor did the Labour party when they were in office. They did produce a Bill but they never brought it up for Second Reading. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that some of their most powerful trade unions were opposed to it. Twenty-four nations have not yet ratified the 48 Hours Convention for commerce and offices of five years ago.
After the passing of that convention an Hours Committee was set up. The British workers' delegate there moved to add the words, "By means of such adjustment of wages as will secure to the workers not less income per week than was received by them prior to the hours being reduced." Immediately after that—hon. Members may read it in the complete report of the proceedings on page 959—the Italian delegate got up


and made himself extremely clear. He said, "I cannot accept a definite obligation to maintain weekly earnings, thus precluding Governments from maintaining the standard of living of the workers by means other than the maintenance of weekly earnings. A certain elasticity is necessary in the text of the convention in order to enable the maintenance of the standard of living to be effected by such means as are most suitable to each country and best adapted to their constitution and customs."
I would remind hon. Members that that was an Italian delegate speaking for a country where industry is an integral part of the corporate State. After that a third stage was reached and separate conventions were discussed. The work of the International Labour organisation is complicated. It discussed public works, building and contracting, iron and steel, and coal mining, but none of those separate conventions was passed, though they are to be on the agenda this year. They did discuss and pass a convention dealing with glass bottles, and there the position really did become clarified because the British workers' representative, who had withdrawn his Amendment on the Hours Committee on the understanding that it would come up before the separate convention of each of the industries concerned, then discovered that it was not intended to do anything about weekly earnings in the separate conventions. The British Government delegate, who has been very much criticised, and concerning whom a very false impression is given in the Press of the country, moved, and the British workers' delegate seconded this Amendment:
In accordance with the general draft convention concerning the general reduction of hours of work and the draft resolution on the same subject, any reduction of hours involved by the application of this convention shall he accompanied by measures for ensuring that the average weekly earnings … are not in consequence reduced.
The Italian representative opposed it on the spot. It was the Italians who got the kudos for bringing this whole question up before the conference. The Amendment was defeated by 44 votes to 14, and it might interest the House to know that in the minority were the workers', and in most cases the employers' delegations, of Great Britain,

the Irish Free State, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and the United States of America. Among those in the majority, that is for allowing reduced wages and other means proposed to maintain the standard of living, were Liberia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, Albania, and Afghanistan.
One thing that emerged from that confusion of committees and sub-committees and conventions and resolutions, was that there was a definite split among the workers' representatives. One big body of workers' delegations believed in work-sharing with the employed who, they considered, should make sacrifices and share out with the unemployed. The others believed, as we believe, in shorter hours without reduction of earnings. The other thing that stands out quite clearly from the deliberations of the International Labour Organisation was that the British Government representative made it absolutely clear that he stood for nothing that would permit of any reduction of weekly earnings. I apologise to the House if I have spent rather a long time on going into the affairs of the International Labour Organisation, but it is specifically mentioned in the hon. Member's Motion, and why he did not go more deeply into it I cannot quite understand.
The next point I want to make is that the convention passed is over an average period of weeks. There is no period laid down such as days or weeks or months. Article II of the Building Convention quite definitely allows the making up of the time necessary after bad weather and so on in out-door trades without payment of overtime rates. That is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman is asking that legislation should be based on the International Labour Organisation Convention, but could a Bill be based on a convention which does not allow overtime and does allow heavy hours of working in one week at the expense of low hours of working the next week? I cannot conceive that tie railway trade unions would approve of the railway companies being allowed to casualise their labour as they would be doing under this convention.
The other point I want to bring before the House is one possible consequence of the Government regulation of hours. It would have to be accompanied by a Government enactment against reduction


of wages. The trade unions and the employers would have to meet and in many industries the employers would immediately put before the trade unions the economic position of the industry, and the trade unions would have to agree that there would have to be lower wages if there were to be shorter hours, and that would conflict with the whole principle which other hon. Members as well as we have taken up. If the Government did enact that the wages should not be reduced the inevitable consequence would be to throw more people out of employment in some industries. After all, the costs of production are an important factor in keeping people employed. Also are we not getting very near the corporate state when we discuss the direct control by the Government of hours and wages, and is not the method of bargaining through trade boards, bargaining between trade unions and employers, far more satisfactory? If this House ever intervenes it intervenes as an absolutely independent assembly.
The last point I would raise is its probable effects upon certain industries. Here I hope to show that I am not against shorter hours. I believe they are necessary and that they will come, and it is far better that they should come by bargaining between the trade unions and employers than in any other way. I am very interested in a boys' club down in Hackney Wick. It is run for boys working in industries and shops. In London where the trade unions are weak the hours many of those boys work are disgraceful. They would not be allowed in the North. It is a crying scandal and it ought to be dealt with somehow.
I have some knowledge of the cotton industry. Do not think I am against shorter hours in the cotton industry. I think they are perfectly feasible tomorrow, provided the employés will agree to a two-shift system of 6½ or 7 hours per week instead of eight, provided at the same time there is another redundancy Bill giving a much more drastic curtailment of redundant plant, because a great deal of extra plant would be made redundant by the two-shift system. You could have shorter hours with benefit to the industry to-morrow if you could get agreement on all sides. It is an interesting point for hon. Members opposite to study, and I know some of their trade union leaders are perfectly alive to it.
Then there is the question mentioned by the hon. Member who seconded this Motion, the increase of productivity in industries catering for the home market. There are certain industries in the home market where I am convinced hours could be reduced—industries where the labour cost represents a low proportion of the selling price. Hon. Members will remember a pamphlet we all received from Messrs. Boots on their five-day week. They will remember that Messrs. Boots pointed out that their labour costs vary from 2.6 to 23 per cent. of the selling price of their articles. The highest percentage of labour costs in the selling price of an article is in coal, which is I believe as much as 66 per cent. There is a corollary to this whole discussion which to my mind makes it rather an unreal discussion. It is that we are discussing one aspect of a most complicated question. It is a question which does not even fall under one Ministry. The Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Labour are all concerned. We have in the House now a passion for co-ordination. We have recently also the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio, very often known as the Minister of Thought. Some verses came into my hand the other day about him. I am not sure that they do not hit the nail on the head.
Doubtless the Minister of Thought
Thinks deeply, as indeed he ought,
And sends his memoranda far,
Health and labour, peace and war.
All that ever happens is
They say it's no concern of his.
That is what must always come
From thinking in a vacuum.
I only mention my right hon. Friend—I can use that phrase in a very real sense—because I cannot conceive that he has a real job of work to do where he is at present. I am going to suggest that there should be drawn up a survey which will give the Mover of the Motion and myself and others better data for all these complicated industrial and social dovetailing questions. I have sketched the points which I think it should contain. It should take the industries of the country and get returns on certain subjects, and these are the subjects which I think should be taken—the increase or decrease over a period of years of effective demand, mechanical improvements and how far they have led to


increased production, the proportion of production for home, Empire and foreign markets, the change of destination in recent years of their products and an analysis of the profits of the industry. So much for the production side.
On the labour side, the proportion of men, women and young persons employed in the industry, the average ages, the proportion of apprentices where the firms are teaching apprentices, the proportion of skilled and unskilled workers and the wages, hours and health statistics in each factory. There should be added to that an analysis of continuous working of industries susceptible to continuous working, outdoor industries carried on by daylight, like shipbuilding and house-building, and an analysis of the shortage or surplus of available catagories of labour. I know it is a vast survey that I am asking for, but I am asking the Government whether in all the future social and industrial legislation which they will have to consider—however much they do not like thinking about it they will have to consider it—it is not really worth their while if out of this Debate there came an idea which would lead to the construction of such an industrial survey as that, which I believe would lead to legislation in the future being founded on realities, possibly I might also add Debates on theoretical questions in this House.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. FURNESS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In my very short experience of the House, especially on Wednesday afternoons, I have thought on several occasions that hon. Members on this side who moved Amendments to Motions that have been moved by hon. Members opposite, have an unlikable and ungracious task because, speaking for myself, and I am sure for very many of my friends, we are all in agreement with the spirit which underlies this Motion and those that hon. Members have moved on many occasions during my short time here. But if one is in agreement with the spirit of a Motion, one may not be in agreement with the method by which it is proposed to put it into concrete effect. I agree entirely with hon. Members opposite in their approach to this question of production and labour. We are

living now in a world in which production is constantly increasing. I do not agree with hon. Members opposite that consumption has reached a static point, because we cannot say that consumption has reached its maximum until everyone in the world has enough of the ordinary things of life. At the same time, production is constantly increasing, and we have in many cases people who have too much to do, whilst at the same time we have people with nothing to do at all.
That is one side of the problem that confronts us. The other side is that education has given to our people to-day a greater desire for leisure than they had 50 or 100 years ago. They have new interests, such as reading, to take a very easy illustration, which were not open to people engaged in manual industry, say, 100 years ago. At the same time as they have ever widening interests opening for them, the work of many of them is becoming, by the mechanisation of industry, more and more monotonous. I agree with those elderly people who preach to the young the doctrine that happiness can only be found in work, but it is a vastly different thing for someone to work in a profession or in this House, or in some job in which he can see his work progressing under his hand, and working, as some people unfortunately have to do, at one dull repetition process, and people who have merely this dull and mechanical job to do do not find in their work their real lives. They find their real lives at home, in their hobbies or in their sports or their recreation. It is very natural that, feeling like that, they should ardently desire that greater leisure should be afforded to them.
We have all gone very tar indeed from that Victorian idea in which leisure was looked upon as immoral and work as a virtue in itself. I do not think anyone to-day would maintain that it is a virtue in itself to do in a laborious fashion something that can be done more quickly and more easily, thus leaving time for recreation or for other activities. If we were debating a Motion that it is desirable that working hours should be shorter and hours of proper recreation extended, I do not think that I or my hon. Friend would be moving an Amendment to this Motion. But we are not. We are debating a definite method by


which hon. Members opposite say that their end can be attained. Having agreed that the end is desirable, the Debate should really turn upon whether or not this is the proper method.
I very much doubt whether general legislation is the best way of dealing with a problem of this kind. I am a little doubtful whether legislation at all is necessary in the vast majority of cases. Our method in this country has been to proceed by the constant pressure of trade unions supported, when they have been successful, by enlightened public opinion, and I think in most industries that pressure is telling and we are steadily advancing in the direction of a better standard of living for all our workers and better hours and conditions. But there may be industries in which there is no effective trade union organisation. It may be that there are industries in which the units of production are so small that you cannot exercise trade union activities within them, such things as those industries that are covered by the Trade Boards Act or the Agricultural Workers Act, in which the agricultural workers union alone was not powerful enough to secure the maintenance of a proper wage level. In those cases legislation of this kind might be useful, but legislation is better directed towards one industry at a time than applying by a general Act a uniform number of 40 hours a week because conditions vary so much.
It is quite easy to reduce working hours in an industry in which the labour cost is unimportant in relation to the cost of the finished article. It is much more difficult to do it in those industries in which the labour cost is a very large percentage of the finished article. I suppose in an industry like agriculture it is very high. In coal-mining it is, I believe, something like 65 per cent., and shipbuilding is not very far below that percentage. In those industries by cutting down your working hours you are interfering and increasing the cost of something which is a big proportion of the finished article. Again there are industries which employ heavy and expensive, or elaborate machinery. In an industry of that kind it is the aim of the management to keep the machinery running as long as possible. The existence of that machinery

is a standing expenditure that has to be paid for. If by any legislation it is kept standing idle for longer than it used to be, it is evident that there will be, at least to begin with, some increase in cost.
If general legislation of this kind were suddenly introduced one of several results would follow. Probably the first thing that would happen would be a reduction of the wage level. It may be—and I think I am a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend—that the trade unions would be able to resist that, as they have done successfully in many cases. If the management is not able to take that way out of the difficulty, it will look round to try to find machinery which will do more work than the machinery already in existence. Therefore, by sudden legislation of that kind, you would aggravate considerably your present unemployment problem. So much for the general principle, on which I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an occasion for some inquiry into the matter.
We are not debating the general principle but the application, by legislation, of the Geneva Convention. I have prepared an analysis of what took place at Geneva and of what that Convention consists. I have always been taught that, in matters of this kind, it is just as well at the beginning to read the document to which you are referring. I realise that hon. Members opposite have read it, but candidly I had not read it until I began to consider this matter. The Convention says:
Each member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this convention declares its approval of (a) the principle of a 40-hour week applied in such a manner that the standard of living is not reduced in consequence; and (b) the taking or facilitating of such measures as may be judged appropriate to secure this end; and undertakes to apply this principle to classes of employment in accordance with the detailed provisions to be prescribed by such separate conventions as are ratified by that member.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is rather a dangerous trap in that apparently straightforward use of the words "maintenance of the standard of living." I, personally, on a hurried examination, would have thought that that would have preserved the wages provision, but, as is made clear by the quotation of my hon.


Friend from the proceedings of the Convention, those words were understood to have quite a different meaning. It has always been, as I understand it, a fundamental principle with hon. Members opposite, and I am sure with all progressive Members of this House, that when the State extends, as the State has been extending social services, and when our people are made better off by such action, that the betterment which they receive through the State shall not he taken into account in fixing their wage levels. That is a fundamental principle of policy in this country, but we find, as my hon. Friend has told us, that that policy is not followed out in certain other countries, which, in applying the Convention, would not follow the rule which we should endeavour to follow here. The second point—and that again my hon. Friend has explained—is that the normal working week is not a week of 40 hours taken week by week, but an average week of 40 hours. Thus—and I think my figures are correct—a man could work 50 hours one week, 50 hours the next week, and 10 hours the third week and still not have exceeded the figure laid down by the Convention. He would not be outside the framework of the Convention.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: That is begging the issue.

Mr. FURNESS: It is a fact in the Convention itself. I think that I am right about it. I do not want to argue with the hon. Member opposite, but, he will agree that my statement is a fair one if he will read the proceedings at the Convention, and the words of the Convention itself. I agree that we could stop it happening in this country by legislation, but we have to bear in mind that it would not be very wise to apply in this country in a proper sense a Convention which other people might interpret in quite a different sense in passing it into legislation.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: That was never intended.

Mr. FU RNESS: It is an attractive thing to certain governments to get rid of unemployment by covering it up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite must wait a minute.

It is quite an attractive thing for certain governments to spread the misery generally, and to say that every man shall do so much work, so that you cannot say of any man that he is entirely without work, and to say that every man shall Receive so much wages, so that you cannot say of any man that he receives nothing. That is the policy with which certain Governments, of which hon. Members have made specific mention, introduced this Convention. Much as we all desire to get rid of unemployment, we desire to get rid of it by increasing work and maintaining wages, rather than by lowering the general level and making everybody unemployed for part of his time.
I think that those two points are sufficient to disclose the effect of the Motion, which asks the Government to introduce legislation to enforce the Convention. If it were Motion asking our Government to make efforts to get a proper international convention drawn up, and then, if others would sign it, that we should sign it, I personally would not be voting against the Motion. The Motion asks us to sign something which is not a good document and which, if we sign it, will do us a very great deal of harm. I would welcome an international agreement which would really be watertight and enforce in other countries the same standards of wages and hours which we have here. I believe that if we cannot get that, we shall in this country best get what we want by that method—it has been laughed at by certain Members of the opposite party—which one of their leading economists once described as "the inevitability of gradualness." It is easy to laugh at that, but in the end that method of doing the thing stage by stage has been the method which has built up the system of social services in this country and our industrial and economic welfare. Rather than go in for the method of general legislation, we should proceed along the lines of trade union action and the education of public opinion, and then, if there were any people who stood out beyond what the general community desired, specific legislation might be applied.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness) has just made a very constructive contribution to,


what, so far, has been a very interesting Debate. It has been marked by unanimity both on the part of the Movers of the Motion and the Movers of the Amendment as to the objects to be sought, but with some divergence of view as to the best and most practical way of achieving it. As between one side of the House and the other, I think that greater optimism as to the practicability and possibility of doing something is on the side of the Movers of the Amendment than on the side of the two hon. Members who brought forward the Motion. I do not find myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Sunderland when he says that we should rely chiefly upon the individual movement and interplay of trade union activities with regard to industry at home. I agree that it is very important. It is to them that we owe practically all the progress that we have made up to the present time, but I cannot dismiss from my mind that it is very important indeed that we should seek to achieve, by international agreement and consultation, the greatest amount of international stability of wage levels. That is indeed, in a world such as it is at present, a matter of paramount importance. The changes in standards of life and living in different countries, leading, as they do, to dislocation one form or another, change economic adjustments and lead us into economic international warfare of one kind or another, which have repercussions and tend to keep the world in the unhappy state in which we find it. We should seek to make the greatest contribution we can to international discussion in order that we may, perhaps, in time achieve something of that international stability which is so essential to the condition of life for the workers throughout the whole world.
The condition of the Hours of Work Convention at Geneva has had a counterpart in the Disarmament Conference in the League of Nations. It has gone on for a number of years now. There have been innumerable sub-committees and technical committees appointed, and some slight advances, and there has been all the manoeuvring and interplay of opinion spoken about and described by the hon. Member for Sunderland and others. If there is a charge to be brought against His Majesty's Government not of to-day, but since the International Labour Office

was created, it is that their activities there lend themselves to the interpretation that, while they agree in principle with what is being put forward, they are in fact doing nothing at all about it. They have at times said that they must in practice oppose a certain thing because there was riot a sufficient amount of knowledge about the economic situation which would enable a decision to be come to intelligently. That brings me to a point in the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley). I endorse and support most cordially his appeal for either more fact-finding work, or the marshalling and adaptation of the facts we have already available. That is a matter of the very first importance, for how much better and stronger would have been the position of the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the International Labour Office if, when those matters came up, instead of saying "We can no longer discuss it because the information about economic aspects is not satisfactory," we would say, "We have, as far as our country is concerned, the information which will enable us to proceed." If we have not got the information, we should get it, so that we can meet next year and discuss these matters on an intelligent basis. I hope the Government will display greater energy and conviction about the work of the International Labour Office. It is a matter of vast importance.
The question as to whether there should be a 40-hour week or a 48-hour week is really not a very vital matter. There is no particular merit in any standard hour-week. We onec had a 54-hour week, and it is encouraging to know—I should like to find something encouraging to say, because hon. Members above the Gangway could not find anything—that in spite of all the checks and failures the International Labour Office is now discussing not a 48-hour week but a 40-hour week. That shows how much progress has been made in spite of all the gloomy feelings of hon. Members opposite, and it may be that in 10 years' time we shall be considering even a less number of hours per week. We are living in a machine age, and in a properly organised society it should be our duty to see that those who are displaced and have to adopt other forms of occupation do not suffer in the interim. That is a proposition with which everybody is prepared to agree in principle,


and I hope is also prepared to work in practice. I think it is true to say that if those who are concerned with the reorganisation of industry are so minded, it is possible to reorganise on the basis of a 40-hour week. It may not be applicable to industry in general, but it is a statement of fact because it has been done in several important industries already.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: Will the hon. Member explain how it could be done under a two-shift system?

Mr. WHITE: I would rather be excused at the moment from going into that matter.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member said that it was very easy.

Mr. WHITE: If I were stating a general rule it would he my duty to explain that point but I said that it was a fact; it had already been done. If I said that it was very easy I stated more than I ought to have stated. But while we are thinking of the great importance of international stability in working hours we should not overlook the indirect methods which can be used for reducing working hours. Messrs. Boots have already been referred to in the Debate. It may be that hon. Members are not aware of the remarkable success of experiments which have been made at Bourneville during the last 20 years. By the introduction of a continuation school there are 1,400 members of the staff under the age of 18 who must attend one full day each week, for which they are paid standard rates, and this has led in that factory to an increase in the volume of work which is equivalent to a reduction of 1½ hours per week over the whole of the personnel of the factory. That is very remarkable. The same firm have a holiday system whereby the employés get 3½ weeks' holiday in each year, which again necessitates the employment of more people. If we were considering the matter on the basis of a work-sharing scheme that part of the scheme in itself would be equivalent to a reduction of working hours over the whole of the factory of 1 hour 20 minutes per week. They have also in operation a pension scheme which retires their people at 60 years of age. It makes room for the employment of several hundreds more who would not otherwise be employed, and by all these means the firm have been

able to reduce the hours over the whole personnel of the factory equivalent to something like five or six hours per week. That is a very remarkable result which is well worth studying.
To those who have this matter in mind I would commend this general proposition, that if as a result of this machine age we are to have a considerable amount of enforced idleness, the proper thing is to concentrate those hours of idleness or leisure on those who are of an age to benefit from them, that is, those under the age of 18 and those over the age of 60 years. As the result of some researches I submitted a calculation on a previous occasion, and the figures show that if the school-leaving age were raised to 15 years and existing laws were put into operation, with part-time education up to 18 years of age, we should create work for the re-employment of persons older than 18 by a figure of about 400,000 to 500,000 persons a year.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I am very much interested in this point. Can the hon. Member tell us the source of his information?

Mr. WHITE: The hon. Member has already mentioned it this afternoon, but I should be glad to give him figures and particulars on the matter. That is my general proposition, that while it is not less important to endeavour to secure the maximum amount of international stability in order to avoid international complications, there are very fruitful lines of experiment at home which may produce valuable results. I find myself, however, in a difficulty to know whether I should vote for the Motion or for the Amendment. Hon. Members above the Gangway have done good service in introducing this topic. It is proper that Parliament, in an age when conditions are changing rapidly, should devote itself to the considerations and changes inevitable from the introduction of the machine. I am surprised that there is not a bigger attendance of hon. Members this afternoon. Having regard to the fact that the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended every day and the great pressure there is on hon. Members in attending to Standing Committee work, I should have thought that they would have attended this afternoon to express not merely their interest but their heartfelt sympathy in any effort to reduce working hours, including the


working hours of legislators. I hope the Government, in reviewing the circumstances, will have a fact-finding inquiry made, which will enable them at the next International Labour Office Conference not to put forward the excuse that there is no information available for coming to any decision on any of the conventions which have been produced, at all events so far as this country is concerned.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. ROWLANDS: I claim the indulgence of the House on this my first attempt to address it. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion, and I want to join with those hon. Members who have expressed a desire to see the hours of the labouring classes reduced not only in this country but in every country in the world. The advances which have been made in education and the many opportunities the workers have for improving themselves in these days call for as much leisure time as they can possibly be given. The only difference that I can see between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members on the other is how this is to be attained. In examining the Motion I am rather at a loss to know what the International Convention has to do. I notice that in some instances the Motion which has been submitted runs away from the Resolution passed at Geneva. It leaves out certain arguments and, on the other hand, includes questions like the weekly wage, which were not mentioned in the Resolution passed at Geneva.
I should like to remind hon. Members opposite that it is very easy to pass resolutions in favour of shorter hours. I take it the intention is that when hon. Members are on the platform they can declare that they have put forward a Motion in this House which would have the result of reducing the normal working hours of the workers in practically every industry in the country. That is the spirit underlying the Motion, although it is not the exact wording of the Resolution passed by the International Labour Conference. If that is so, then they ought to know better than I some of the difficulties there are in redeeming these promises when sitting on the Government side of the House. Mention has been made of the coal mining industry. I remember what has

happened to the industry since 1926. After that long stoppage, it became necessary to increase the hours of labour in the industry, and on every platform of the country protests were made against the proposal. A promise was made that the Act of Parliament would be repealed, but immediately hon. Members opposite came to this side of the House the best they could do was to reduce the hours by half an hour per week. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech at Leicester in which he said:
The Labour Government is pledged to redeem the seven hour day, and that promise would he redeemed, but he warned them that they must face facts. An immediate return to the seven hour day would inflict grievous disaster on the industry, pits would close and miners would be thrown out of work. Therefore, as a preliminary to a reduction of hours, the Government were taking steps to help the industry to re-establish itself. There must not be any reduction of wages.
It may be asked why I am quoting this. It is because the Motion includes the great mining industry as well as other industries, and I say deliberately that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite changed places with us to-day, they would say that any reduction of hours in this huge industry is unfortunately an absolute impossibility without a reduction in wages. I see hon. Members opposite shaking their heads; but they know what happened the other day when the miners claimed an addition to their wages. We have heard an excellent analysis of the difficulties of the industry from an hon. Member who spoke previously. Even the trade union leaders of the miners realised the difficulties. Because there was no money in the industry to pay for the increased wage, an appeal had to be made for higher prices. Those higher prices were obtained, and the result was that the miners' leaders themselves recommended the acceptance of even half of what they were demanding. Would they have done that if there were money in the industry? Certainly not, and I would not have blamed them for not doing it.
The point I want to make is that in order conscientiously to vote for the Motion, hon. Members opposite must ask themselves whether they could reduce the hours of labour in this great mining industry if they had the opportunity to do


it by legislation now. The Motion reads:
The time has arrived when the normal working week should be substantially reduced.
The Motion asks that it should be done now. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member who spoke last that there should be an international examination of the various industries and that an international arrangement should be arrived at. The Amendment suggests that we should proceed gradually but certainly towards the end we all have in view, and that hours should be reduced where it is possible to do so without there being a reduction in the wages of the workers. It is in that way and that way alone that the workers of this country can he given a happier and better life and enjoy greater leisure, and the industries of the country be given prosperity. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: It affords me real pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) on his maiden speech, and that pleasure is increased by the fact that he happens to represent the county in which I was born. One is tempted on this occasion to depart from the ordinary custom of the House and to criticise his speech in its references to the mining industry, but it may be possible on future occasions for that to be done by Members representing mining constituencies.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) as to the spirit and tone of the Debate, which have certainly been exceptionally good. I am not sure that the manner adopted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment was not rather an apology for the Government's inactivity at Geneva. I was rather impressed by the Seconder—and I am sorry I interrupted him—when he was emphasising the point that the Convention could lead to a 15-hour week, followed by another 15-hour week and then a 10-hour week. That possibility was never used as an argument by the employers at Geneva, who used every argument they could find. Had they thought that this particular argument was

worth using, they would have used it. What surprises me is the way in which the Government and the employers adopt the same attitude on all industrial questions, for at Geneva the Government and the employers used the same three arguments. The employers opposed the Convention on the three following grounds. In the first place, they were convinced that a reduction of the normal working week would not alleviate, but would aggravate, unemployment. I can only say that whatever the Convention might have done—and I have much sympathy with the argument that it would not of necessity have meant a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed—it is, in my opinion, no argument at all to say that it would aggravate unemployment.
The second reason the employers gave for opposing the Convention was that past experience had shown it was impossible to frame an international agreement on the question which would be universally observed and enforced. If that be the Government's attitude, if they say that there is no guarantee that every country a member of the International Labour Office will honour the agreement, I submit that they have very poor grounds for opposing the Convention. Surely in the case of every convention there are some countries which are not prepared to ratify. There are several instance of conventions ratified by the British Government 10 years ago, but not yet ratified by dozens of countries, members of the International Labour Office. I can hardly believe the Government are sincere when they oppose ratification on the grounds of the possibility of some nations in the world not ratifying the Convention. The third reason given was that it is impossible to deal internationally with hours of work without also dealing with wages and taking into account the different circumstances as regards economic conditions and size of population in the various countries. I agree that that is a difficult question, and no one has suggested that the carrying out, of an international convention on hours which takes into account the wages is an easy task.
The reason we support the Motion is that we believe something ought to be done to enable the workers in the various industries to enjoy far more of the benefits of mechanisation than they have enjoyed hitherto. I intend to direct my remarks in the main to the mining in-


dustry, because that is the industry I know best. Those who represent the miners do not feel that this Convention will be a very great thing for the workers in that industry, for the miners are not to-day working a 40-hour week. Therefore, it is not because we feel that the miners' working week would be reduced if the Convention were ratified that we are adopting the attitude we do, but because we realise that it is a step in the right direction as regards other industries. We have argued at Geneva, and still argue, that the miners are entitled to have a convention which puts the hours at a lower figure than in the general Convention. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that at Geneva the British representatives put forward a claim for that.
I want, first of all, to show that the miners have suffered and not benefited from mechanisation. In 1913 the number of coal-cutting machines in the mining industry was 2,895, and in 1934 the number was 7,406. Let me now give the figure for conveyors, a machine which has altered coal-getting very much indeed. In 1913 there were in use in the mining industry in Great Britain 359 conveyors, and in 1934 the figure was 4,099. In 1913 the percentage of coal produced by machines was 8.5, and in 1934 it was 47. Since 1920 the average output in the mining industry has increased by 7 cwts. per man-shift worked. But we now hear of another machine which we very much fear, and in this connection I will read to the House a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian":
A machine for which big claims are made has been installed in a Wigan coal mine. The machine, which is the invention of a Scottish mining expert, is a combined cutter and loader and has been perfected on the spot by the inventor. It is stated that many orders have already been placed for the new machines. One comment on the machine was: …. It will certainly revolutionise the industry. There is no question now that the type of men who will he required underground will be those with a good knowledge of engineering.'

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the hon. Member aware that that machine has now been taken out of this pit?

Mr. MACDONALD: I appreciate that that particular machine has been taken out of the pit, but if I am told that it will not be improved upon, I shall be more satisfied.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Purely, from the technical point of view, it is unlikely that it will make much further progress.

Mr. MACDONALD: I have been informed differently. I was told that the machine was taken out with a view to further experiments and improvements. If I am given to understand that the machine has been done away with, I will agree that reference to it is unnecessary. The point I wish to make is that the application of machinery to the mining industry has not brought any benefits to the miners. It has displaced thousands and thousands of miners, and even those who have been retained have suffered. There has been an intensification of work underground. There has always been a great physical strain in mining, as those of us who have done 20 years of work underground know, although we may not look too bad as the result of it. To-day mining is more than a physical strain, it is a tremendous nervous strain. Indeed, the nervous strain is to-day greater than the physical strain. If one considers the matter from the point of view of wages, it will be seen that no benefit has resulted from the application of machinery. In view of all this, hon. Members ought not to be surprised that we bring forward a Motion which will give the workers of this country some benefits from mechanisation.
There are some specific questions I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. In the document which the Government have sent out as regards the 20th Session of the International Labour Conference to be held in June next, we are told that the Government have not yet made up their mind as to the coal industry in reference to this Convention. There are one or two questions which the Government ought to answer. I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be in a position to give definite answers to-day, but we ought to know where the Government stand on these questions relating to the mining industry. The Government are asked: "Do you consider it desirable that the International Labour Conference should adopt, in the form of a draft convention, international regulations for the reduction of hours of work in coal mines in accordance with the principle laid down in the 40 Hour Week Convention, 1935?" Surely there is nothing to prevent the


Government saying, "Yes," or "No," to that question, and we who represent the miners are very anxious to know the Government's attitude.
The Government are further asked a question to which we would like to have an answer to-day if possible. It is, "Do you consider it desirable to retain as far as possible in the proposed Draft Convention the provision on the hours of work in the coal mines, save for such changes as would seem necessary in the lower limits of the hours?" We in the mining industry have always stood for the daily regulation of hours, which we think is the best regulation, and we have always opposed anything in the nature of a spreadover of hours. We think that the number of hours to be worked underground daily should be determined legally. We have a very strong trade union in the mining industry. We can get as many concessions from the employers possibly as any other trade union. Our strength enables us to do so. But we are not prepared to trust the determining of the number of hours to a trade union alone. We believe in legalising the hours of work for all industries. I do not see any great objection to the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness) that the various industries should be taken separately. There is much to be said for that view. But all the Convention does is to lay down a maximum weekly number of hours. If we adopt the Convention, there is nothing in it to prevent the Government here saying, "The mining industry is very dangerous and instead of a 40-hour week there should be a 30-hour week in that industry." The Convention simply lays down 40 as a maximum for all the industries specified in it. Do the Government believe in any kind of international Convention for determining hours? If they are unable to ratify this Convention, what kind of Convention would they be prepared to ratify? We hear much about unilateral disarmament. We are not asking for unilateral action in this case. All we ask is that the Government should carry out the decision taken by them at Geneva—taken, I know, by them in a minority vote. Surely, the worker has suffered long enough as a result of mechanisation. Is it not time that the workers shared in the benefits? We are asking the House to pass a Motion which proposes to give more of the bene-

fits of mechanisation and rationalisation to the worker than he has been able to enjoy up to now.

6.18 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): This being a Private Members' day, I shall apply the shorter hours principle to my own remarks. I share with the hon. N ember for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) a sense of disappointment that the Mover of this Motion did not really deal with what I consider to be the most substantial part of his proposal. The Motion having stated that the time has arrived when the normal working week should be substantially reduced, in order to allow the workers to benefit from the increased productivity of modern industry, proceeds:
and this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation in accordance with the Convention adopted by the International Labour Conference of 1935, with a view to giving effect to a reduction of hours of employment without reduction of weekly earnings.
I expected him to devote far more time than he did to analysing this Convention and seeing how it fitted in with the proviso in his own Motion that hours should be reduced without any reduction of weekly earnings. There has been a great deal of confusion on the subject of the 40-hour week Convention and this Motion, with its rather conflicting objectives, seems to be another instance of that confusion. It is therefore desirable that the issue should be clearly stated and for that reason I make no apologies for traversing again a good deal of the ground already so admirably covered by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. In the first place let us be clear about the chronology of the proceedings at Geneva. First, there was the main Convention embodying the principle. There was then a draft Resolution—not a Convention—on the subject of wages. Then there were various draft Conventions with the object of applying the principle of the main Convention to certain industries. Successive Governments considered the question of the shorter working week and in discussing that problem they had to give consideration to the factors of cost on the one hand and wages on the other. As the Motion merely deals with wages, it is to that issue that I propose to confine my remarks.
There is no doubt that the ratification of this Convention, leaving aside what our likes, our dislikes and our ultimate hopes may be, would mean that you would reduce hours with a great risk of weekly wage earnings being reduced also. It was clear at Geneva when this Convention was being considered that many countries were specifically not prepared to agree to the principle of maintaining earnings. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has quite justifiably asked me a question and he was kind enough to say that he did not require a specific answer in detail at short notice. May I, being at all events partly a Scotsman, reply to his question by asking him another. Is he prepared to have hours reduced in the coal industry on the principle of and in accordance with the words of the Convention which is mentioned in this Motion? I may add that I do not expect him to give an answer to that question straight away.
That consideration also has a bearing on the second question which the hon. Member asked me as to what sort of Convention the British Government would be prepared to accept. The answer is really what happened at Geneva. It was the fact that many countries were specifically not prepared to agree to the maintenance of earnings in connection with the reduction of hours, which prompted the workers' group led by the British representatives, to get passed a Resolution safeguarding, or at least putting forward the idea of safeguarding earnings. One has to remember that the Resolution is nothing more than a Resolution and can have no legal force whatever, but the fact that after the Convention had been considered, the workers' representatives pressed for the passing of that Resolution, showed, at all events, what was in the minds of British workers' representatives at Geneva.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgotten that there is already a Convention on the coal industry?

Lieut.-Colonel MU I RHEAD: I am dealing at the moment with the specific question contained in the Motion.

Mr. SHINWELL: I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interrogation to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) related to what

ought to be done in the coal industry. The question has already been asked and I think we are entitled to an answer: Is there not at Geneva and in the possession of His Majesty's Government a Convention which is awaiting ratification and what is the attitude of the Government on that Convention?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I was, at the moment, dealing with the particular Convention which is mentioned in the Motion. I am entitled to confine my remarks to that specific Convention. If the hon. Member who moved the Motion had wanted to specify some other Convention he could have done so quite easily, but this Convention is of his own choosing. I am merely dealing with the Convention which the hon. Member himself has chosen. The hon. Member for Ince asked me a question, in the first instance and I asked him another. I put it again to him. Is he prepared to accept a Convention on the same principle and in the same words as the particular Convention specified in the Motion?

Mr. G. MACDONALD: But I did not answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No and I was not expecting the hon. Member to do so. The draft Convention which was put forward with the object of applying the principle of the earlier Convention did not embody the Resolution on wages for which the British workers representatives pressed, nor did it even pay that Resolution the slender compliment of mentioning it in the Preamble. In fact, the only reference to the matter is contained in the very shadowy words of the main Convention to the effect that the standard of living is not to be reduced in consequence. I was a little shocked to find that the Mover of the Motion used the phrase "standard of living" apparently under the impression that he was referring to maintenance of earnings. It did not seem to strike him that there is a vital difference between the words of the Convention about standard of living and the words of the Resolution for which the British workers representatives pressed, namely maintenance of earnings. There is, of course, a substantial difference and the wording of the Resolution showed the importance which British workers, at all events, attached to the meaning of that phrase.
If the Convention is ratified it means that the Government will give international sanction to reduce hours in other countries with reduction of wages. It is not a question, as the hon. Member for Ince suggested, of whether other countries come into the Convention or not. It is not a question of being frightened that other countries will not come in. It is really rather a question of being frightened that they will come in. It is a question of what the actual Convention contains and the point is, to put it frankly, that an international Convention which did not contain a provision for maintaining wages could he of no use to this country. This particular Convention contains no such provision. Indeed it contains an undertaking to the contrary and it is on that account, and not through any fear of other countries not coming in, that we take up the particular attitude which we have taken on the subject of this Convention.
In this discussion on shorter hours, there were two sets of people with two different objectives. First, there were those who wanted shorter working hours and reduced wages. Then there were those who wanted to shorten the hours and at the same time maintain the wages. I think it odd that the Mover of the Motion should have made no mention in it of the resolution to which I have already referred which was pressed for by the workers' delegation at Geneva. The Government's attitude towards this question and the emphasis which the Government put on the necessity for safeguarding wages, are supported by what is happening in connection with voluntary negotiations in this country. During better times the joint voluntary machinery of negotiation in this country continually laid emphasis on wages improvement. When we look at what that machinery has achieved, we are bound to admit that it has a considerable record of effectiveness to its credit. I do not think any general statement can override or supersede the method of joint negotiation by people on both sides of an industry who have had a lifetime of experience. Take the boot and shoe manufacturing industry. There they have come to a voluntary agreement for a reduction of hours from 48 to 46, to take effect next June. Do hon. Members really think the Government

could have compelled a further reduction of hours without at all events imperilling a reduction of wages?

Mr. KELLY: The workpeople in that industry have forced the reduction of hours on employers.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will not use the word "forced." I am prepared to take the machinery of joint voluntary negotiation, and the fact is that such negotiations—I will not use the word "forced " on one side or the other—have proved it possible to effect that reduction in the boot and shoe industry, and if the joint machinery had really had to make a still further reduction, having regard to the conditions of industry, that machinery would have been perfectly adequate to do it. I know hon. Members will say, "After all, if one has an international arrangement, everybody will do the same thing, and we shall be protected as well as other countries." Leaving aside the diversity of conditions in the various countries, the fact remains that this specific draft convention which we are discussing contains no such protection at all. In fact, the attitude of the other countries at Geneva to the main Convention which eventually emerged, and the resolution which the British workers pressed for afterwards show, I think, at the moment that it is not practicable to claim that this is a Convention which is satisfactory to the workers of this country. Obviously, the Government are not opposed to the idea of lessening the hours of work. The Government, of course, do not say that there are specific hours of work which are sacrosanct in perpetuity—nothing of the sort—but at the moment, taking the specific point which we are discussing, the Government refuse to legislate for the compulsory regulation of hours and for interfering with joint agreements in the industry for the purpose of supporting a particular draft Convention which, so far from containing any protection for the wages and earnings of the workers in this country, is, I maintain, a menace to the conditions of the British workers.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. CHATER: I am convinced that not many years can elapse before either this Government or some other Government, and that, irrespective of its political colour, will be compelled by the


mere force of circumstances to give legislative attention to this question of shortening the hours of labour. I know it is extremely difficult to find statistics that will give us a clear view of the per centage of labour which is displaced by modern machinery, but in this House itself, during a Debate on the mining question, a statement was made by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), on the 11th December last, which at any rate gives us some idea of the possible displacement of labour in the mining industry, and I propose at the very outset to quote what he said in order to illustrate the enormous displacement of labour which takes place owing to the introduction of modern machinery. He said:
Under machine mining you displace perhaps 80 coal hewers who may be getting lls., 12s., or 13s. per shift, and in place of them you put 20 men, who probably earn 17s. or 18s. a shift, and 20 others who simply go on to day wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1935; col. 945, Vol. 307.]
I do not pretend for a moment that the displacement there is quite as great as the figures would appear to show, but obviously, even if it is not as great as 50 per cent., it undoubtedly accounts for a great deal of the unemployment in the coal mining industry, because we see from the official figures that already 47 per cent. of the total production of coal is cut by machinery. I would adduce, as further evidence of the tremendous displacement of labour and the possibilities of machine production, a statement made by no less an authority than Lord Melchett, an authority which I venture to think will be above suspicion in any quarter of this House except perhaps my own. He said, speaking at the annual dinner of the British Chemical Plant Manufacturers Association on the 24th January, 1935:
I do not think that any technical man would deny this first hypothesis, that it is physically possible to double the production of every important raw material and every important manufactured commodity within a period of the next 10 years. It is a perfectly practicable problem from the purely technical point of view. You can go through all your prime commodities and all your principal manufactured products and deal with them in some detail as I have done, and I do not think you will find one the production of which cannot be doubled quite easily, without any extraordinary factors having to be brought in, within the next decade.

I do not know exactly what Lord Melchett meant by saying that it would not be necessary to bring in any extraordinary factors, but I believe it is a well known fact that in this country at the present time, with the existing plant which the country possesses, it would be quite possible in many instances to double production right away without employing any additional labour, and it is a gloomy prospect for us to look at, that a man in the position of Lord Melchett should tell us that we could double our production in the next 10 years without bringing in any extraordinary factors. His Lordship did not elucidate what he meant by those words, but I rather imagine he meant something along the lines that the existing plant was practically, sufficient for that production and that if the production were to be doubled, not a great deal of additional labour would be required to do it.
I want to ask whether it is not essential for the Government to consider this problem. In fact, whether they do or do not, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the gradual growth of what has been called the hard core of unemployment will increase not only materially but tremendously during the 10 years referred to by Lord Melchett. There is no possible way of getting that hard core reduced, I will not say to manageable proportions, because I do not believe in such a thing—I believe the only way to deal with it is to get rid of it altogether—but to bring it down to something below what it is at the present time. I believe the only possible way in which it could be done is by a reduction in the hours of labour. What is the prospect? It will not be denied, I take it, that during the next 10 years we shall require to give employment to far more persons than at present, but if this economic development is to take place, that already we can double our production, practically speaking, without employing a very great percentage of additional labour, then there is not much prospect for those who are coming along in the immediate future to find employment.
There are three ways, so far as I can see, in which the problem of unemployment could be dealt with. First of all, if we acknowledge that mechanised production has overtaken to a large extent


the possibility of increased consumption on the part of the masses of the people, then the only other solution is shorter hours of labour. There are three ways in which it can be done—by making the period of the entry into labour later in life, by making, at the other end of life, the moment when a man may be able to cease to labour earlier, and, on the other hand, by reducing the hours of labour. I believe that in the last proposition, the one put forward in the Motion today, lies the most potent way of dealing with unemployment. I have listened during this Debate to all the pros and cons which have been put forward as to why it should or should not be done, and I admit the difficulties of concluding a satisfactory Convention at Geneva, but I believe, in addition to that, that there will come along circumstances which will override these considerations.
You cannot face the continuous piling up of unemployment until probably it reaches a level which it seems to me it must reach within the next 10 years, if we go on under existing conditions, where you will have a hard core of unemployment not of a figure round about 2,000,000, but possibly more like 4,000,000. Do the Government imagine for a moment that the masses of the working-classes of this country will sit down quietly under a prospect such as that? If those who are responsible for the Government of our country hope to see this problem solved in a peaceful and orderly manner, I suggest that some attention must be given, and given before very long, to this problem of reducing the hours of labour in order that there may be a reduction in the army of the unemployed, and not only so, but in order that there may be some reasonable prospect of employment for those who have yet to come along.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. HOPKINSON: What always impresses me more than anything else in a Debate like this is the extraordinarily antediluvian notions of those who speak from the Labour benches. The same stale old fallacies which I' used to hear when I was an apprentice at the bench can now be heard no longer in active industry, but only from the Labour benches in this House. It is quite easily seen how that happens. The system of election prevailing in the Labour move-

ment is such that it is only those who are completely out of date who succeed in getting safe seats in this House. I venture to say that what has been put forward from the Labour benches to-night would be repudiated with scorn by the more active spirits in the trade unions at the present day. I think I have had more experience of the working of short hours in industry than anyone else in this country. I was apprenticed to a great firm more years ago than I care to remember, and that firm were the first in the engineering industry to adopt the 48-hour week, and to do away with that period of work before breakfast which was one of the great grievances, and a legitimate grievance, of the working-people of those days.
I well remember that the reduction of the hours of work from 54 or 56 to 48 did not have a profound effect. Means were taken to secure that these shorter hours should be better occupied in the works and the discipline was much more severe. After years of experience of the 48-hour week, the heads of the firm came to the conclusion that as long as theirs was the only firm in the industry working shorter hours, it was an economical advantage to them, but they doubted whether they would get any advantage if everybody in the district adopted it too. When I set up in industry on my own account, I started with the 48-hour week, and when the hours were subsequently reduced in the rest of the industry to 47, I went to 44. I say without any ulterior motive that I am inclined to think that if everyone else in my particular district were to go on to the 44-hour week, I should find my production would fall off very considerably compared with what it is now when everybody else is on 47 hours. I am merely giving these facts for the consideration of the House and I do not attempt to make any deductions from them in respect of this Motion.
The other point about which I would like to give the benefit of experience is this. I agree with miner Members that the coal-mining industry is ultra mechanised and that the capital expended on the mechanisation of our coal pits has in many instances gone far beyond what is economically justified. Quite apart from that, even if colliery owners had kept the mechanisation of their pits within reasonable bounds, I should like to ask hon. Members what


has brought about the mechanisation. Surely it is the fixing of wages and hours of work by Statute that has produced the mechanisation of the pits. The natural reaction in industry to conditions of labour, wages and hours of work imposed on it, particularly when they are imposed by Statute, is to increase mechanisation. Take the case of privately owned concerns such as my own has been until recently. There again, the proprietor does not want to see his profits go in buying machinery of the most elaborate sort and to throw his men out of work. He wants to have a steamer or a big motor car; he does not want his profits to go begging in the purchase of elaborate automatic machinery. Hon. Members can take it as definite that if an industry mechanises and spends huge capital sums on complicated machinery whose only object is to throw men out of work, the reason is that the industry can only survive by that means for, if you do not mechanise your industry and throw your men out of work, you will go into bankruptcy.
In my own works a number of years ago we had ordinary lathes on which each man produced to the best of his ability. These lathes were gradually replaced by elaborate capstan and combination lathes whereby one man was able to do as much work as five or six did on the ordinary type. Hon. Members of the Labour party, I am sure, will not accuse me of taking any delight in seeing my men sacked. Most of them live in the village along with me, and it is no pleasure to me to take steps to sack my men. Quite apart from that, on purely selfish grounds, I should much rather have a few thousand pounds to spend on my own selfish pleasures than to spend on capstan lathes. Mechanisation is caused by one thing only, and that is conditions being imposed on the industry which industry is not in a position to meet. These are things which have been under my constant observation and within my own personal experience within the last 30 years.
Surely the whole problem before us is not how to raise the wage rate of the individual man in industry, but how to devise means for paying week by week a larger aggregate amount of wages to the workers of this country. I maintain—and this is where I am at issue with my hon. Friends above the Gangway—that in

certain industries a lower wage rate for the individual would mean a greater aggregate of wages paid in that industry. The whole unemployment problem depends on the reduction of the amount of money paid for no return and the increase in the aggregate amount of wages paid in return for some substantial production. The problem of unemployment and of hours is the raising of the aggregate amount that is paid week by week to the whole of the workers of the country. The policy of the Labour party, and until recent years the policy of the trade unions, has been most unfortunate in that respect. They have endeavoured, by raising individual wage rates and raising hours, to make it better for the individual trade unionist, with the inevitable result that they have reduced the aggregate of wages payable and that a very large number of people are permanently out of employment. Even the man who is in employment does not benefit, because where does the money for unemployment pay come from? It comes out of the pockets of the productive workers of industry. Therefore, the policy of attempting to get artificial wage rates does not benefit the men in industry.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has introduced an aspect of the subject which has not hitherto been touched this afternoon. I feel sure that none of us on this side will be prepared to agree with him that the objective should be only to raise the aggregate wages paid in a given industry. We have to consider first whether the wage that is being paid is adequate for the maintenance of the individual worker. There might be a good aggregate wage in an industry, but the wage per individual might not even be adequate for his maintenance. This condition obtains in many industries to-day. Hence the reason for our being prepared to support a convention for the 40-hour week, provided the present wage standard is maintained. We cannot afford to entertain any further reduction of wages, which in many instances are far too low.

Mr. HOPKINSON: That is exactly what I meant by the antediluvian fallacy of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House.

Mr. VIANT: We cannot afford to accept the antediluvian theories and arguments of the hon. Gentleman. His argument would take us back to a standard of living enjoyed by the savages. We must have some regard for the recognised standards of to-day. They have been tenaciously fought for, great sacrifices have been made for them, and we must safeguard them at all costs. As an individualist, the hon. Member holds tenaciously to his point of view that he must be permitted to reduce the hours of labour in his factory in order to attract the best type of labour, but he prays at the same time that the same policy will not be adopted by other employers in the industry. That is arguing for himself alone, and the argument does not hold water. If it be good for him and for the employés in his factory, we are prepared to accept those conditions for the rest of the workers in the industry. That is what we are arguing for this afternoon.
I was disappointed at the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are prepared to admit the difficulties that exist, but we were entitled to expect from him not a reinforcement of the negative attitude taken up by the Government in their replies issued in the Command Paper; we were entitled to expect, as a result of the Debate to-day, that he would be prepared to accept the suggestions of his hon. Friend, the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), who asked that some data should be provided by the International Labour Office whereby a workable convention might be drawn up. The hon. Member offered suggestions as to the essential data required. Had we had a promise of that kind, we should have been inclined to be a little more optimistic, but nothing of the kind has been offered. The Government are taking up a definite negative attitude to this question.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I regard this Debate strictly as a Private Member's Debate. Therefore, I think it is desirable that the Government speaker should apply himself directly to the specific point at issue in the Motion. That is what I tried to do with the object of not taking up more time than was necessary. I took a great deal of note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) said, but I

did not enter into a discussion on those questions because I wanted to deal with the specific subject of the Motion.

Mr. VIANT: The purpose of these Motions and the purpose of introducing a Private Member's Bill is not only to discuss the merits of the Motion or the Bill, but to elicit from the Government the policy that they intend to adopt in regard to the principle involved. The principle in this Motion is most important and we were at least entitled to expect some lead from the Government in respect to it. The White Paper leaves us cold. It is purely negative, and is indicative of the attitude of the Government towards this subject. The subject is of too much importance to warrant a negative reply such as we have received this afternoon. At the present moment we are experiencing a reduction in the number of unemployed, but no one can forecast how long that is likely to continue. Employment may for the time being be inflated as a result of the armaments policy of the Government. But improvements in machinery, technique and organisation must tend to increase the numbers of the unemployed.
If we suffered a reduction of wages consequent on a reduction in the hours of labour, we should be thereby intensifying the possibilities of further unemployment. In so far as you reduce the purchasing power of the masses, so you increase the number of unemployed. That is inevitable; it is an economic law that cannot be denied. We stand first and foremost for the retention of the present standard of living aid wage standards for that reason alone. Have the Government given any consideration, has the Ministry of Labour given any consideration, to meeting the possible increase in the unemployed in the near future? This is a subject which should be engaging the full attention of the House. I rather regret that there hive not been more Members present this afternoon to consider this all-important subject. If there is one thing more than another which is likely to bring civilisation down, it is this increasing problem of unemployment, which is inevitably bound up with improvements in machinery and technique. A subject of this kind is worthy of the consideration of the whole House and the Minister of Labour should be giving a lead. There is no better lead than a


reduction of the hours of labour. The question of international competition has been raised. That was argued in this House when the Factory Acts were introduced. It has been argued in this House on every occasion when methods have been proposed for shortening the hours of labour or improving the conditions of the workers.

Mr. CROSSLEY: The hon. Member would not pretend that there is any analogy between the situation now with regard to the export trades and the situation at any time before the War?

Mr. VIANT: I was not arguing that; I was arguing the general attitude of Members on the other side of the House on these questions, and more especially when measures are introduced for reducing the hours of labour. I happen to be one who has taken part in trade union negotiations. I can well remember in the industry with which I am associated arguing for a reduction of an hour a day, and I can hear mentally the replies of the employers "It is only in that hour of the day that we make any profits, if we make any profits at all." All these arguments have been used in the past. We are asking for a lead on the subject of this Convention from the Ministry of Labour. They have given no lead this afternoon. They have simply put up the difficulties. I admit that hon. Members were kind enough to offer them suggestions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give them due consideration and that when the Ministry of Labour send their delegate to the next conference of the International Labour Office he will go briefed, not with such a negative reply as is outlined in the White Paper, but with a request for data which are essential in order that a workable convention can be drawn up.
I want to pass to another aspect of the subject. No one with a knowledge of the industrial world to-day can help but be appalled at the manner in which overtime is being worked. You will hear the workmen themselves and employers also saying that they wish there were a law to prohibit the working of overtime. Unfortunately to-day when one employer refuses to put his employés on overtime, he is informed by those for whom he is doing the work that if he is not pre-

pared to work overtime the work will be taken elsewhere. I remember that the Prime Minister, when he spoke on this subject last year, made an appeal to employers not to work their employés on overtime. But an appeal is of no use whatever. We want a law prohibiting the working of overtime, with reasonable exceptions. Already in some well-organised industries they have made a law for themselves and, in conjunction with the employers, committees have been set up laying down the condition generally that overtime is not permissible, with certain exceptions. Representatives of the employers and of the trade unions meet and decide on the merits of a request as to whether overtime shall be permitted or not. In many instances that has meant putting into employment a considerable number of men who would otherwise be unemployed. It is a method which should receive the endorsement of this House and the encouragement of the Ministry of Labour. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of this and let it be widely known, and that he will encourage the prohibition of overtime wherever possible.
But we must look forward and entertain the idea of passing some form of legislation which will prohibit overtime and thereby place all employers and employés on the same footing. Numbers of trade unions have found that many of their members have been working overtime not for 50 hours but 60, 70 and 80 hours per week, and they have had to work that overtime week after week and month after month, with the inevitable result that their health has been impaired, and they have eventually had to go on to the sick pay of their union and the sickness benefit of the National Health Insurance. That is uneconomic from the point of view of both the employer and the State, and we should be prepared to consider the position and the need for shortening the hours of labour in this regard. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give consideration to these questions and that he will point out the ill effects of overtime and the reasons why we must retain the present standard of wages and yet take steps which will reduce the hours of labour, if we are going to avoid the catastrophe which must eventually overtake us as a result of the mechanisation and organisa-


tion which are taking place in industry at the present time.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. LESLIE: The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment were of opinion that legislation was not the best way of dealing with a question of this kind. But they ought to bear in mind the fact that this is an international question and that the only way you can deal with it is by legislation. They were afraid also that other countries would not carry it out if it were adopted. But they ought to know that many conventions have been ratified by other countries, translated into legislation, and are being carried out very effectively at the present time. That there is a need for international agreement over labour questions cannot be gainsaid. It is only by international agreement that unfair competition can be checked and friction between the nations obviated, and the work of the International Labour Office has been of immense value. It has created a network of labour treaties setting up a standard of life in many countries which hitherto was thought impossible. One hears so much about unfair foreign competition and the need for tariffs that one wonders why British employers and the British Government have been so lukewarm and even in direct opposition to any attempt at Geneva for the regulation of working hours.
I happened to be at Geneva last June when this question was under discussion. The majority of the employers there refused to play the game. They refused to go into committee to discuss the pros and cons of the case, and as a result of their attitude there was very scathing condemnation by representatives of other Governments. The most scathing of all came from the representative of the United States. He characterised them as Rip Van Winkles. He said that the arguments that they used would have been advanced at the end of the eighteenth century; the arguments were not new; they were recited in the House of Lords when the first Bill for the reduction of hours was before that body. At Geneva this Government employed delaying tactics, willing to wound but afraid to strike. During the past four years the British Government have never sent a responsible Minister to Geneva, but always a civil servant with instructions,

apparently, either to oppose or to remain quiescent. It is good to know that the present Minister of Labour has decided to attend Geneva when the International Labour Organisation is dealing with this question next June.
We have an unemployment problem, and the trade union and Labour movement think a reduction of hours would to some extent mitigate the evil. Some employers think, however, that a reduction of hours would not assist, because reorganisation would take place and new inventions would be introduced to replace labour. That may be true, but our case is that scientific devices should not be used merely as wage-saving devices but as labour-saving in the real sense, reducing the working hours. If a machine is introduced with which one man can do the work of 100 there are 99 potential consumers of the product of the machine who have not the wherewithal to purchase. What will the end be? In my own opinion Capitalism contains within itself the germs of its own destruction. I am glad to know that some firms are not afraid to risk shorter hours.
The firm of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has introduced a 40-hour week and a five-day week, and it may interest other hon. Members to know what other countries have done. In Czechoslovakia 750 factories have a 40-hour week, and in 1,500 factories they work less than 40 hours a week. France has restricted overtime in vital industries, whereas in this country we see some men working almost all the hours that God sends, while others are walking the streets vainly searching for employment. The United States of America, by raising the age of entry into industry to 16, which ought to be done in this country, and reducing the hours in certain industries to 35, in others to 40, and yet others to 45, and, in the case of the distributive trades, to 44 or 48 hours, was able to absorb nearly 4,000,000 unemployed. Australia is considering a 30-hour week. Scandinavia is well on the way to instituting a 40-hour week. Belgium has a 40-hour week on the Government programme; and Ireland has a Bill to reduce hours.
If it be the case that the Government are really in favour of reducing hours, and that the only objection hitherto has been the effect of foreign competition, let


me deal with domestic occupations where no foreign complications arise. In 1931 a Select Committee was appointed to deal with the conditions of shop assistants, and it was unanimous in recommending a 48-hour week for young persons under 18. The Government introduced legislation last year, but not for 48 hours but 52, with 50 hours per annum of unpaid overtime. The 48-hour week will not come into operation until the end of this year. The Government declined to implement the recommendation of that committee with respect to adult workers. The committee recommended a 48-hour week, but the Government took no action.
When a Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to give effect to the recommendation, what was the Government's attitude? They said, first, that the 48-hour week would create unemployment. It is a new theory that by reducing hours we create more unemployment. There are multiple firms to-day which are understaffed and employ their assistants for hours after the shops have been closed, and we think that a reduction of hours to 48 a week would mean that the shops would have to be properly staffed, and that that would absorb some of the 300,000 distributive workers at present unemployed. The second objection put forward by the Government was that it would reduce wages. Wages are largely regulated by competition in the labour market, and if a reduction of hours reduced the numbers of those competing for jobs we should have no fears for wages.
As it is, wages are so low that decent firms are calling upon the Government to set up a trade board to protect them from wage-cutting and price-cutting firms. The third objection from the Government was that it would mean an increase in the price of commodities. Evidence was submitted to the Select Committee that firms operating the 48-hour week charged no more for their commodities than firms where the 60-hour week, or longer, was in operation. At one time it was the proud boast of this country that it led the world in social legislation. I am afraid that boast can be made no longer, after what has been happening at Geneva in the past four years. The latest decision of the Government on the 40-hour week shows what a deplorable position this country now occupies, and I hope that

this Debate may make the. Government reconsider their attitude and that it may therefore not be without results. If the Parliamentary Secretary feels that things are not altogether what they ought to be why did not the Government assist instead of hindering at Geneva?

7.25 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I was very much disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary did not give us some idea of the Government's policy on hours. It is easy for him to say, "The Convention does not appeal to us. It has difficulties and it has dangers." But I want to put to him the conditions existing in a trade like my own, the baking trade. He and his Department know the scandalously long hours that men are working—anything up to 80 hours a week. Thousands of men are working 65 or 70 hours a week. On the other hand, great numbers of the men are unemployed. What are the Government proposing to do to stop overwork on the one hand and unemployment on the other? There is no question of overtime here. The men are paid no overtime. They work all the hours that God sends and their health suffers. What applies in that industry applies to millions of men and women in other industries. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying, "I am in favour of voluntary negotiations." There are only 4,000,000 workers in the trade unions; 10,000,000 are unorganised, and, in the main, are at the mercy of their employers. In many industries, particularly the light industries, there are no regular hours and no overtime rates. Side by side with that state of affairs we have 2,000,000 unemployed. Surely the Government cannot neglect this matter very much longer.
I have considered this question ever since the Washington Convention. I was on the Committee set up by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to consider hours of labour. Every Government knows in its heart that further legal restriction of the hours of labour must come sooner or later. Cannot I appeal to the Ministry to go into this matter and to make up its mind to produce a policy, to recognise that unrestricted hours of labour cannot be continued much longer. They are now carrying on consultations with the trade unions, and incidentally, I may say to


the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the Government have all the information on this matter, both national and international that they require, and surely the time has come when a conclusion should be reached. To-day the Government had an opportunity of putting forward some policy. If they have no policy then, I say it with all due respect, more shame to them. If they tell the country they have no policy on this question of hours I believe the country will be thoroughly disgusted, because the

country is no more satisfied than we are that millions of money should be paid out to men who are unemployed and want only a chance—they would go on their knees for it—to get work and wages. Surely the problem is serious enough to command the earnest attention of the Minister at this time.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 160.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Quibell, J. D.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Bt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Salter, Dr. A.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Compton, J.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Dobble, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Fletcher, U.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Potts, J.
Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Ellis Smith.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bralthwaite, Major A. N.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Briscoe, Capt, R. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Cranborne, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crooke, J. S.


Assheton, R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Burghley, Lord
Cross, R. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cary, R. A.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cautley, Sir H. S.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Bainiel, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Channon, H.
Dunne, P. R R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Christie, J. A.
Eckersley, P. T.


Bernays, R. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Edmondsos, Major Sir J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Ellis, Sir G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Elliston, G. S.




Emery, J. F.
Llddall, W. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Everard, W. L.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Rowlands, G.


Fildes, Sir H.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
McKle, J. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Savery, Servington


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Selley, H. R.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Magnay, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Grimston, R. V.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Guy, J. C. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Hannah, I. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spens, W. P.


Harmon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Harbord, A.
Mitchell, H. (Brentlord and Chiswick)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hepworth, J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Holdsworth, H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hopklnson. A.
Munro, P.
Sutcliffe. H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nall, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hunter, T.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jackson, Sir H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Train, Sir J.


Joel, D. J. B.
Peake, O.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir G.
Turton, R. H.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wakefield, W. w.


Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Klrkpatrick, W. M.
Pllkington, R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
White, H. Graham


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Porritt, R. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Leckie, J. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)"
Wise, A. R.


Lees-Jones, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Levy, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)
Mr. Crossley and Mr. Furness.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

7.38 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: rose—
It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CALEDONIAN POWER BILL

(By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.39 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add, "upon this day six months."
The reasons why my hon. Friends and I who are opposing the Measure ask the House not to give it a Second Reading are that matters of general principle are concerned in it. The same reason influenced us in selecting the persons whose names were to be circulated to the House. Although some of us are Scotsmen, we

are anxious that English Members should not think this is purely a Scottish matter. The rights of private citizens are intimately concerned, not only as employers and employed, but as ratepayers. Certain provisions of the Bill challenge a recent decision made in the Rating Valuations Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. The Lochaber Power Company went to the Court of Appeal in January of this year, and asked for special rating terms, modifications, that is to say, of their present rating terms, which would put them on all fours with the rating terms which are set forth in the Bill. I am informed on good authority that if the Valuations Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal, which it did not, it would have meant an extra £15,000 a year on all the rates of Inverness county and borough.
To put the matter slightly differently, if the company who are coming to the House for these powers were compelled to pay rates at the rate at which the Lochaber Power Company are at present paying, their rates, I am informed, would come to something like £25,000 per year. On the other hand, if they get the special rating facilities for which they ask the House in the Bill, their rates would be reduced to only £5,300. Even those of us


who do not think employment for profit is wrong—some of us hold no brief for that—say that when a private manufacturer comes to this House and says that, out of a burden of £25,000, he wishes to be let off with £5,300 at the expense of the ratepayers, that is not the sort of matter which, with all the attendant costs, should be allowed to go to the Committee upstairs. That is a question of general principle which concerns ratepayers north and also south of the Tweed.
If it were desirable that such rating differences should be made for these companies, we contend that this would not be the method of doing it. There should not be a Clause in a Private Bill upsetting not only the rating system, as we understand it, on such undertakings, but so recent a decision in the Rating Valuation Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.
We are told that unless the company get this relief they cannot function and give us this nationally important power. About that I would, with great respect, offer two observations, the first of which is that I understand that at the same hearing the chairman of the company remarked that the surplus power at the disposal of the Lochaber Power Company would be equal to two-thirds of the total output, and that they saw no prospect of using up that surplus power. That two-thirds amounts to more than the whole output which the new company expects to produce. We are entitled to say, when there is a job going on constructive work of this kind that it is not only a great pity to give the work to an area which is not distressed while there are many other areas who could well do with it, but that it is a mistake to start reducing the supply of power when already sufficiently reduced power is obtainable from a company which is paying its proper rates and is contributing its proper share to the county and to the borough in which it is situated.
There is a further observation. We are told by the promoters of the scheme—we know there are people who have been engaged in promoting this kind of scheme for some time—that they can produce the power they need far more cheaply by this hydro-electric system than in other ways. That may be well for them to

say, but it is a statement which I would prefer to challenge. It is an ex-parte statement. I represent a colliery district and I think it is by no means fair to say that a company which says that it can only get this power as cheaply from water should, in the same breath, say that, in order to produce their power so cheaply, they need something which amounts to an unfair and differential treatment from everybody else in rating and purchase of their requirements.
May I explain to the House what I mean? It has been accepted that hydroelectric power companies incur their great, and almost their only, charge at the very initiation of their schemes. One very large payment is sufficient, with a minimum of upkeep and care and maintenance, and this initial expenditure secures the production of the power where they want it. They have received already special treatment on this score. They get a very substantial reduction in respect of their initial expenditure. I think it amounts to 1 per cent, of the total capital value, which, taken yearly, amounts to a very large sum. I do not know if that figure is right, but it is somewhere near right. In this case a further reduction is being asked for, of something like 0.2 per cent. If we are to take a fair analogy between the hydroelectric plant and its competitor using coal, we ought, if we give to the hydroelectric system a special concession in respect of the money that it spends in one large sum, to do the same with the concern that is producing its power by means of coal, and to allow it to take into account, for purposes of assessment to rates, the whole of the expenditure that it has to incur.
That expenditure would be incurred, not only for the erection of plant, but for the erection of plant plus the purchase of coal, plus the sum if money set aside for the winning and delivery of that coal; and, if the competitor producing his power from coal could reckon his costs on the basis of what; it costs him to produce his power on the spot, I think we should have a some what fairer basis on which the respective expenditures of the coal-using system and the hydro-electric system could be computed. It would then become possible, and I believe certain, that schemes of this kind, instead of going to employ Irish labour in navvying in odd parts of Scotland, destroying the


beauties of the countryside, annoying every section of the community, and destroying amenities, would go to parts of Great Britain where they are needed—where men are out of work, and where the finding of work for them would not necessarily mean depriving other men of the work which they already have; and we should also find an outlet for the coal which is our special wealth, without using up the source of power which is the birthright of the people who live in these Highland parts of the country, who have no coal or other source of power to fall back upon.
The matter of site is one that is stressed by those who are promoting this Bill, but we say that, as I have already pointed out, there are many places in Scotland more suitable from an industrial point of view, and that this is probably the last place that would be selected for a coal-using plant. It is argued that there are also strategic considerations, and I should be interested to hear why it is thought that a factory erected at the head of this loch canal, this long chain of water from Inverness, would be in a good position from a strategic point of view. I am no authority on bombardment from the air, but I have consulted people who can speak authoritatively on such matters, and they assure me that nothing would be easier than for a single raiding aeroplane at night to follow this long line of water and attack an undefended factory at the end of it. If, therefore, strategic considerations be important, it would surely be far easier to defend a place in a distressed area.
We are told by the promoters of this scheme that the matter is one of national importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members say "Hear, hear," because it proves that a great deal of the very active lobbying that has been going on in support of the scheme has been on this basis. But I would respectfully put it to the House that that is not the basis on which the Bill is presented to the House. If it is a matter of national importance, then it is not for the promoters of a Private Bill to come and tell us where the national importance lies. If it were a matter of public importance, it would be the duty, which I have no doubt they would faithfully perform, of His Majesty's Government to explain to the House that it is a matter of national

importance, and to put on the Whips, so that the decision should not be left to the whim of private Members. I submit that the fact that this has not been done proves that it is not a question of national importance, but that the Government look upon it as a conflict of interests and desire to leave it to the fair-mindedness of Members of the House to decide.
This is a matter which concerns every section of the community, and, if it is to be left to be decided by private Members on the question of equity, I would recall to the House the fact that the citizens of Inverness County and Borough have within the last seven years been called upon to bear considerable expense in order to defeat a Bill which was suspiciously like this one. It is all very well for people who stand to make, perhaps, tens of thousands of pounds—I had almost said hundreds of thousands of pounds—or, at any rate, very large sums of money, to consider it worth while to come to the House of Commons and take a Bill to a Committee, perhaps spending £15,000 or £20,000 in getting the most expert advice, legal and technical, that can be obtained; but it is a very different thing for a poor Highland county and town to keep on continually paying this kind of blackmail in order to defend their rights in Committee upstairs. The West Highland Power Bill, which came before the House in 1929, and which was, as I have said, suspiciously like this Bill, cost the various parties—borough, county and private persons—in Inverness something like £15,000 to defeat. It was defeated. At the same time they had to oppose another Bill, the Grampian Power Bill, which also was defeated in Committee. Now we are faced with yet another attempt by, I had almost said, the same old gang. Their ramifications are widely extended, but it is fairly easy on careful examination to recognise them every time.

Mr. ORR-EWING: If I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for a moment, I am not interested in any "old gang," but I think the House itself would be interested to know exactly why the people of Inverness would like this Bill defeated. I ask only for information.

Captain RAMSAY: As I understand it, the people in Inverness are not nervous lest this Bill should get through, any


more than they were in the case of the other Bills, but they are very anxious not to be compelled to engage expensive counsel and technical experts to defend their rights upstairs, in view of the fact that they have already had to do the same thing twice within the last six or seven years.

Mr. ORR-EWING: My hon. and gallant Friend has not given the answer, which I think would interest the House, as to why it is that those in Inverness wish to defeat this proposal.

Captain RAMSAY: That is a very wide question. I have dealt with the general principle at some little length—I hope at not too great length—but I should not like to go into all the details. Broadly speaking, it is on the general principle that I have outlined that they wish the Bill to be defeated on Second Reading and not to go to a Committee. If it goes to a Committee, they will have the same confidence in the Committee as they have in this House, but they will be put to very considerable expense in defending their rights. Therefore, I would beg the House to deal with this matter as one of general principle which concerns us all, and to remember that, if it were a question of national importance, His Majesty's Government would have treated it as such and put on the Whips. As that has not been done, I hope hon. Members will resolve to exercise their independent and individual judgment as to whether a company working for private profit should, without showing to the House by chapter and verse how they can produce power more cheaply in this particular place than in any other place or in rivalry with coal, be given this special consideration in regard to rating and so on in order to make their production of power possible. I hope the House will refuse, in the interests of poor citizens who have no other means of defending their rights, to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: With regard to the special provisions, the importance of which my hon. and gallant Friend has emphasised, with regard to the assessment of lands and works to be used in the proposed scheme, would he tell the House why the concessions made in the previous Acts should not be continued in this Bill?

Captain RAMSAY: Those concessions are not really germane to the special concessions which are being asked for in this Bill.

7.59 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support the opposition to this Bill because, although I should be glad to see proper developments of water power resources in the Highlands of Scotland, the Bill contains Clauses which, in my view, the House should not pass on Second Reading. My hon. Friend has referred to the first of these Clauses. Clause 67, which is in reality giving to this company a subsidy. I have asked some hon. Members in the House who are supporting the Bill if that was really their view, and I have been informed by them that a subsidy is necessary if this work is to be carried out. It may well happen that somebody has the genius to introduce to this country a new manufacture which could not be developed unless somehow or other it is subsidised, and it might well be that this House of Commons might say that a subsidy was essential and therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant a subsidy in order that this particular manufacture should be rendered possible. That is not what the Clause in the Bill says. The Clause in the Bill asks the ratepayers of Inverness-shire to bear the burden of this subsidy. It asks for the subsidy not for a period of time but in perpetuity.
My hon. Friend who sits near me asked whether there are not other cases where similar privileges to those mentioned in this Clause were granted. In the case of the Lochaber Power Bill there is no such privilege. In the case of the Grampian Power Bill that privilege was asked for but only for a short period of time, and it was granted relief from rates for a few years, during which very naturally the promoters were developing to their full capacity. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to grant, and if such a reasonable measure has been asked for in this Bill instead of relief in perpetuity from the rates it would be a very different matter. It would be wrong to ask this House to make my constituents in Inverness-shire, who in the bulk are not a wealthy community and are very largely composed of the crofter class, to bear the burden of this extra money that will be


required and get practically no benefit from the rate. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) mentioned the sum of £5,000. I have been given figures which show that the actual amount that would be paid is something just under £2,700, a still less figure, but whether it is £5,000 or £2,700 the figures are small, and quite obviously they are different from the figures that would be normally payable if the ordinary law of the country was able to take its course.

Sir P. HANNON: Is not the point he is arguing about the collection of rates on an assessable value not yet created in point of fact?

Sir M. MACDONALD: It will not be assessed until it is created. In the case of the Grampian Power scheme it was not assessed for five years. That is not what is in this Bill. The promoters asked to be relieved of seven-eighths of the taxation which would be normally payable and which another great company, the Lochaber Company, is paying alongside them. You would have this situation that in this particular district of Inverness-shire you would have on one side of the glen a company paying the normal rates assessable, and on the other side you would have a company paying little or nothing. Obviously what would occur would be this: If this Bill passed through the people on the other side would at once promote a Bill to get the same consideration. I hope the House will see it is right and just to reject this Bill and ask the promoters to come back with a reasonable Bill in another Session or another year.
That is not the only point of objection. There is a feature in Clause 51 in this Bill which I am advised has never been introduced into a private Bill or indeed any Bill in this House before. It allows the Caledonian Power Company to purchase land which they in turn are going to sell to third parties whatever might be said about rating relief and asking for a short term of years while the plant is working up to its full capacity, there can be nothing whatever to be said for a Clause of this kind, which gives authority to the promoters to purchase land to hand over to other people to erect factories, mills and other things to whom they may sell power. These two Clauses in the Bill show very clearly the extreme

steps to which the promoters were willing to go. I can imagine them saying to themselves, "We have a new industry here. The country wants it. We cannot go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say we will introduce this; please subsidise it." Instead they take means of altering the ordinary law of Scotland, the rating law, and the ordinary law that is aplicable to England and Scotland in regard to the other point in Clause 51, in their own favour. These two Clauses, on which in particular I ask the House to reject this Bill to-night, are supported by evidence throughout the Bill of the extreme measures to which the promoters of the Bill were prepared to go.
I heard an hon. Member ask why it was that the town of Inverness was opposing this Bill. I can tell him. Sixteen per cent. of the water now flowing down through that beautiful river, one of the most beautiful rivers in Scotland, if not the most beautiful, is going to be wholly taken away from them.

Mr. ORR-EWING: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that 16 per cent. of the water is going to be taken away from the River Ness at all times of the year? Will there not be at some times of the year more water coming down the river than has ever come before?

Sir M. MACDONALD: I quite agree that my hon. Friend might find himself justified in the point he has made, under a very stringent stipulation. We know quite well that the Lochaber Power Company are only using one-third of their power. This Bill has three power stations, the biggest one of them, on the promoters' own statement, has 22,000 horse power. There is no Clause in this Bill to say, "We will do all the schemes, we will regulate all equally." Very naturally the promoters will take Loch Quoich first, but if they do then they get 22,000 horse power by diverting this water from its natural course down to the sea through the River Ness and shoot it out through a tunnel on the west coast. Need they have done that? Could not that water quite well have come in an open cut along the hillside just as happened in Kinlochleven and drop into Loch Garry? If it did, of the 550 foot head that is available at the present moment, over 300 could be got straight-


away at Loch Garry and another 150 or more would be got in the next stage at the next power station.
In other words the promoters of this Bill think nothing of the interests that they were affecting by altering the course in which the water flows from the source to the sea, but think only of extracting the last ounce of power from the water and sending the water to the west coast. They could have got five-sixths of that power by leaving it in its natural course and thus not affecting the town of Inverness. There are many similar matters in the Bill which show the extreme limit to which the promoters are prepared to go. There is a Clause which says that the Secretary of State may form a committee of people interested in amenity and they can make suggestions and meet the company and consider what would be best in the interests of amenity. If they disagree, the Secretary of State is to be empowered to settle what in his mind is right, but there is this serious proviso, that he dare not cause one drop of water to flow into a channel except as the promoters desire. It is Clause 74, and it says:
Or such as to limit the amount of water which the company arc by this Act authorised to use for the purposes of the undertaking.
In other words, not even the Secretary of State has the right to say that a little trickle of water can go anywhere or be diverted from the purposes of the promoters. When the first two matters that I mentioned, rating and the right to purchase, are taken into account when, as I have shown, the promoters have exhibited no regard whatever for the interests of Inverness or for amenity if it touches one drop of their water, the House would be very fully justified in rejecting the Bill.

8.24 p.m.

Brigadier - General Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: The speeches that we have heard show quite clearly that the Bill contains a very large number of technicalities. It has been stated that it is perhaps almost notorious for the amount of lobbying and propaganda that have been displayed in connection with it on both sides. So much lobbying has left many misunderstandings in the mind both of those in favour and those

opposed to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection believes that there is no national necessity for the Bill or the objects that it seeks to achieve. I am going to accept his challenge, and I shall confine myself as far as possible to an exposition of the reasons why this is a national industry of very great and serious moment. Carbide plays an enormous part in engineering, shipbuilding and other industries. I can best give the House an insight into its value by relating a few experiences that came under my notice during the last War. I had the responsibility for the supply and production consecutively of high explosives and propellents, and finally for all classes of products handled by the Ministry of Munitions.
At the outset of the War we had no carbide industry. We were dependent upon those countries that have a monopoly, and the monopoly resulted from the fact that they had cheap water power. We started by drawing supplies from Norway. For every ton of carbide that we got from Norway we had to send them a ton of anthracite. Feeling that we were not too safe in the hands of Norway, the Treasury and the taxpayer had to expend large amounts of capital in establishing and developing a carbide industry in Canada. Again, we had to send coal in return for these supplies from Canada. It was not so much a matter of disorganisation in bringing this material in from Canada and Norway as the risks that we ran from submarines. Our supplies had to be convoyed, at very considerable inconvenience to the Shipping Board, and it took away shipping which was badly needed for the purpose of bringing in foodstuffs. The Government decided finally that it was necessary at whatever cost to have a carbide factory in this country and they erected plant at Spondon in Derbyshire. That plant operated during the War, but when we got back to peace time, it was found that power generated from steam for the production of carbide could not compete with carbide produced from water power and, therefore, that plant fell immediate y into disuse. It is to-day lying derelict at Spondon. Surely, that is one argument against what we hear that this industry should be placed in a distressed area and the carbide made from steam power. You


cannot make electric power for this industry if it is to compete with the foreign, and right hon. and hon. Members will remember that carbide to-day, owing to our weak position, is not even subject to the general 10 per cent., but is on the free list, and was put on the free list under our Trade Agreement with Norway. I maintain that this industry is vital in the case of war, and goodness knows, there are enough rumours of war around to-day.

Mr. MESSER: Too many.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I agree that there are, but we have to be prepared. This industry is the one industry that at all costs should be one of our first lines of defence. I will go further, in connection with war products, because, while the plant for the production of carbide is a very flexible one, and, if necessary, would be capable of producing another vital raw material for the iron and steel trade, namely, ferro silicons, carbide is also a source of production of other essential war materials, such as acetic acid and acetone, and even to-day 14,000 tons per annum of carbide of calcium is being imported into this country for the production of acetic acid at Billingham. So that the industry, not only from the point of view of the necessity for the engineering and shipbuilding trade of oxy-acetylene, is also of vital interest for other essential war materials. One reason why the industry is being placed in Scotland is that, as I have stated before and shown from evidence already available, Scotland seems to have the necessary water facilities. In 1920 the question of carbide calcium as a national industry was evidently placed before the Nitrogen Products Committee, of the Ministry of Munitions Inventions Department, and in the Blue Book issued in 1920, the following final report appears. It is in page 215, beginning at the first paragraph. I do not propose to quote it all, but I will quote two or three pertinent sentences:
Calcium carbide, the intermediate product in the manufacture of cyanamide, is of considerable commercial importance. The demand for this product in connection with oxy-acetylene welding and metal-cutting and for lighting purposes is rapidly increasing, and there have been important recent developments in its utilisation as a raw

material for the manufacture of synthetic aldehyde, acetic acid, and acetone which are essential for munitions, and are largely used in various industries.
The observations on page 17 are as follow:
To sum up, the higher cost of electrical energy under British conditions, although an important factor from the point of view of foreign competition, is to a large extent off-set by other favourable factors, such as cheap and abundant raw materials and the elimination of sea freights. There seems no reason why the manufacture of both carbide and also of calcium cyanamide, if laid out on a large scale, should not be successful in this country. There are blocks of undeveloped water power in Scotland of sufficient size for the operation of a large factory.
That is the report from a special Department of the Government set up to investigate these matters.

Sir M. MACDONALD: Does that report presume that a subsidy would be given by the relief of rates in the County of Inverness?

Sir W. ALEXANDER: As a matter of fact, in the last War, what we did in setting up these factories in Canada and in this country was to grant a compulsory subsidy for this industry. I am not dealing with subsidies at the present time. The place to deal with them, in my opinion, is in the Committee room upstairs.

Mr. D. EVANS: The paragraph to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred and which he has read, does not, I submit, limit the possibility of the manufacture of carbide from hydro power. It mentions that there are other compensating factors.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I will grant the hon. Member that there are other compensating factors, and if carbide could be manufactured, even in a distressed area, from steam power, I do not think that the British Oxygen Company would go to the Highlands to put down this plant. All things being equal, I think that they are patriotic enough to place this plant in a distressed area, but it is impossible, and you cannot produce power from a steam plant which will allow you to produce carbide to compete with the foreigner and give an economic price to the consumers in this country.
I will deal with a few of the Opposition factors which have been mentioned in connection with this Bill. The first one is the question of amenities. A great deal too much has been said on the question of amenities. As far as the hydroelectric part of the Bill is concerned, while the amenities may be prejudiced during the construction of the plant, once that has been cleared up, I do not think that the plant will be a blot on the landscape of Scotland.

Captain RAMSAY: Is it not a fact that a good many miles of river are going to be completely dried up?

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I am not aware of anything of the kind. That is why I say that all these misunderstandings among hon. Members with regard to this question should be fought out in Committee. You cannot in the course of a few hours' debate get all the information and details which are desirable in connection with the Bill. There has been a great deal of lobbying also on the question of the destruction of sporting rights in the Highlands. I remember the strong indictment made many years ago by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the lairds and tenants of shooting and fishing estates in Scotland were preventing the Highlands of Scotland from growing foodstuffs. He said that mangel-wurzels could be grown in the Highlands of Scotland quite easily. It would be about as easy to grow hair on pavements as to grow mangel-wurzels on the mountains, moors and glens of some parts of Scotland. Then there is the question of rates, and we all sympathise with the misgivings of hon. Members in regard to the question of rates. I am certain that the promoters of the Bill do not want to put anything on to the community of the districts, including Inverness, which will cause them to be out of pocket by the Bill. They are perfectly reasonable. They have undertaken to consult and co-operate, but it is quite certain that if you are going to levy rates upon a capital of £2,800,000 on the usual scale you are going to kill the possibility of this great national industry coming to Scotland. I have already dealt with the depressed areas. In my opinion there would be no objection to going to a distressed area

if it were possible to get the water facilities which are absolutely necessary.
In connection with the national aspects of the question I should like to know the opinion and the views of the great Services of this country as given to them by their supply departments. Each of these services must know the value of carbide in the fulfilment of their various programmes. I should like to know whether the Board of Trade have not some views and opinions in connection with this project. Further, I am interested to know what is the view held by the supply section of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Carbide of calcium is not an isolated case in our requirements in the event of a crisis. There are others, but it is one which should be tackled immediately in view of its great importance. All things considered, hon. Members of this House will be failing in their duty to themselves and their country if they do not grant this Bill a Second Reading, so that it can be debated in Committee with all the cards on the table, promoters and opponents getting a fair deal.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I am certain that the promoters of the Bill will be pleased to hear the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander). He began by saying that it was difficult to wipe up the mess made by the extraordinary amount of lobbying done on the Bill, but he wiped it out by making it clear that in his opinion this is a war measure. Private enterprise, under a claim that this is in the national interest, comes in and puts all its fingers and its feet into the pie. The Bill is another evidence of the incapacity of this country to organise industry, Even the arguments so far as they affect war necessities show an absolute lack of co-operation of ideas and knowledge. The Bill is put forward on a single basis, but once we have the statement from the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Glasgow we get tae full light of the sun as to the real purpose of the Measure. The question of water power has come to the front lately and riot too soon. This particular area is the last of our great water catchment, areas which can be used for water purposes. This is the last Bill, if it goes through, which can


be passed dealing with water power. There is no other place left to which you can go for water power for any purpose.
But the promoters of the Bill do not stop at the little plea about industry. Everything in the Bill, every Clause in it, just makes over as a complete monopoly the whole of the water supply of the Highlands of Scotland. One would have expected that when a company was anxious to find accommodation in an area such as this, it would have consulted with the local authorities in the area. If for no other reason than that of trying to be friendly, the county council and the borough council ought to have been taken into consultation. The company has made it appear by its actions that there is something it did not want the local authorities to know, and while we do not know the whole of the story yet, if this Bill has the misfortune to go to Committee, we shall get to the bottom of it. If the local authorities had been consulted a great deal of trouble would have been avoided and a great part of the cost entailed in this Bill would have been saved. If the promoters had consulted those in charge of the area, we would have had to-day, instead of this continuous lobbying, a clear statement of the facts. It is evident that in making this effort to ignore the local authorities they had something to hide, for if they had not, why did they not consult the local authorities?
On reading the Bill, one finds that the promoters put forward all-embracing ideas of establishing a monopoly, but they bury the real objects of the Bill. On the question of rating alone, they have tried to make it appear that they have some special rights as against everyone else in industry in this country. That is the meaning of Clause 67. What does the 1 per cent. spoken of in that Clause mean? It means that in the audited accounts—and we know what some audited accounts can be—the base is to be 1 per cent., and after that a deduction of 20 per cent., which is equal to 8s. per £1,000. After they get that concession, they go still further and ask for all the rights under the existing Acts in relation to rating. We on these benches have always tried to have the whole system of rating in the British Isles reviewed and put on a sane basis.
It is a very strange thing to find business men, men who claim to be the brains of business, men who say they have been acquainted with business all their life, men who have been running the company since it began, saying that they cannot proceed with this proposed works unless they get this concession. They are most unfair to everybody else engaged in industry. Why should they alone receive this concession? There is no conceivable reason why everyone engaged in industry should not come with the same plea. The company is not a poor company, but is a very wealthy one making good profits. Either they have no confidence in their power to continue that or they wish to cover up that, fact in order to place a financial responsibility on a given locality in the form of rates.
Taking the proposal as a whole, it would appear that the Government are prepared to stand behind certain industries and to give them facilities that cut across the existing system of rating. There is nothing in the Bill which gives any control once it is passed. No statement has been put forward as to the available power in that district. All has been hearsay. There are hon. Members sitting on the opposite benches who, if this is a great national question, as has been stated, and if they had the national interest at heart, could tell the House all about that area and could tell it whether these hearsay statements regarding the amount of power available are true. They could tell us the cost of the unit at the machine and what would be the cost of transport to that part of the Highlands where it is sought to establish this works.
The chief defect of private ownership everywhere is that there is no co-operation or correlation. If the industrialists in this country desired to co-operate, why should the promoters of this Measure not have known in a friendly way whether or not there was power available and at what price that power could be supplied? The promoters come to the Lobbies and say that unless they get the electricity unit at a certain price, they cannot go on; but if promoters in industry want to get things through this House they ought to tell the whole story, and they ought to be able to say that their friends in the same area using water power to produce current can make it at a certain price. Had this power been in national hands,


information concerning the surplus power and all knowledge connected with it would have been put forward, not in the interests of getting a subsidy from the rates or in the interests of trying to hide something, but in the interests of the nation and its industry. We do not find those in private industry ready to help the nation; they never do so except for profit.
We are told that certain power exists in the area and that after three or four years the company having that power may require it. But if this thing is so essential to industry, and if the works could be built a mile and a half from the source of power, which would mean a transfer of a mile and a half in order to get this essential commodity to industry, why are we not told the reason for private enterprise holding up these possibilities for the immediate manufacture of this essential thing? Apart from the fact that there is no co-operation between industrialists, the placing of all this water power in the hands of a private monopoly means something more than appears in the Bill. The promoters state that grants in respect of rating, such as they request, have already been made in the cases of the Grampian and Galloway schemes. Here is another instance of the withholding of information. Statements have been printed that are not in accordance with fact. What is the position in regard to these two schemes? In 1924, in the case of the Grampian scheme, the committee refused what was asked, but they granted the company relief for five years to give them time in which to turn round and we know that to-day that question is occupying the attention of the authorities in Edinburgh, because the five year period is coming to an end. It now becomes a question of the company, in that case, having to face rates. One would have thought that, in the national interest they would have said, "We have had five years for nothing; we have done very well and we are now going to pay our part of the rates."
The Galloway Bill is no analogy because in that case the county council came to an agreement with the distributors and the company paid large sums to them which the county council could if they cared use for rating provision. It is a pity that hon. Gentlemen in presenting

a case to the House should try, by not giving details, to lead to misrepresentation, because that is what it means in the end. It is far better to put all the cards on the table. I do not believe that, even if this Bill should go upstairs, all the cards will be put on the table. You will have to pull them out. They will not be put down but you will have to get them out, one at a time. When you want information of this character it is like drawing teeth. In the case of the two Bills already mentioned it was made clear that, when the period had elapsed for which conditions of relief had been granted, the question for consideration would be, not whether any rates should be paid or not but the amount of rates which should be paid. It was understood that the company was to be free of rates for five years and at the end of that time, it was not to be a question of deciding whether the company should continue to be free from rates or not but of deciding the amount of rates which the company war then to pay and that is the question which arises in Edinburgh now.
I come to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Glasgow on the technical side. We have been told repeatedly that tariffs gave us bargaining power with other countries. Here we have the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that this industry is of great national importance and that when we purchase calcium carbide from other countries we have to send out our anthracite and coke. He went on to say that that was, in some way, involved with the question of price. If you want to bargain with a country which has to get its anthracite and coke from you, surely, on that basis, you ought to be able to come to some arrangement with regard to price. He went on to speak of the 1920 committee. I am sure that he knows about the tragedy of Gretna. He spoke of the plant that had been allowed to go to ruin, but he did not give any details.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: I had not time.

Mr. HARDIE: I think the hon. Member might have found time for one or two sentences on that subject. There was no subsidy mentioned in 1920 and the representative Government chemists who sat on that committee made it quite definite in their oral estimates that there


was no necessity for any help to be given to the industries who wanted to make calcium carbide in this country.

Mr. MACLAY: The hon. Member is referring to a report which was drawn up in 1920 when trade conditions and the margin of profits were entirely different from what they are to-day.

Mr. HARDIE: In 1920 the cost of anthracite was much higher than it is to-day and the costs of lime and calcium were much higher than they are to-day. I think the hon. Member will on reflection see that his remark does not apply. Furthermore, the margins of profit then were not margins of reality, on the figures. We know the way in which the industrial accounts of this country have been kept. When we ask what happened to those profits we are told that they just melted away like snow in the sunshine. The hon. Member ought to take up this question and study it, and he will find the answer to his own interruption. The chemists were quite certain of the view I have just indicated in 1920 and what they said applies to-day, even more than it did in 1920, if we take the capacity of this country to-day and its electrical production compared with 1920.
Why has no one mentioned anything about the Electricity Commission in this connection? Why should not evidence have been given by the chairman of the Commission as to the point at which they can produce and supply? Why have we not been told of the experience of the Electricity Commissioners since the grid was instituted and bigger plant was employed in the production of electricity? Why have we not been told of the possibilities in that respect in relation to the present scheme? It is remarkable that the promoters have sought to hide every real point in relation to the subject. The committee's report was very detailed and the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Glasgow said that when they referred to carbide they had said there were other things as well. Yes there were, but not one of those things was ever mentioned in relation to a subsidy or any kind of outside support. The men who gave evidence were acquainted with the work and knew the conditions. I am surprised at the use which has been made to-night of that 1920 report.
In regard to the national importance of this subject, all those engaged in engineering know its importance. We know that we can produce calcium carbide in this country. It seems strange that it should come to be 1936 before any serious effort is made in this direction. It is very strange indeed on the part of the industrialists of this country. We shall be told about this thing in the Highlands that there are going to be great difficulties. Suppose you take the question of the raw materials. The first raw material is water, and that is translated into light and power, and now we are going to make calcium carbide, and since in that area I have no knowledge of any calcium carbide, we are told by the promoters that there are some men engaged in looking for it in Scotland. Since the days of Hugh Miller we have known a whole lot about geology in Scotland, and the promoters of this Bill must know this, that you have to bring the anthracite from Wales and the calcium from Ireland. You may have got that which is claimed by the owners of mines in Scotland to be anthracite, but has the hon. and gallant Member opposite seen the analysis of the coal that is claimed to be anthracite, and does it correspond to that of the anthracite from Wales?

Sir W. ALEXANDER: It might be used for the purpose.

Mr. HARDIE: I cannot accept that, because while I could have analysed it myself, I did not do so, but I got the Royal Technical College in Glasgow to analyse both. When I was on the Glasgow School Board, I changed from that system of heating to a system using anthracite, and I said to the mineowners who offered what they claimed was anthracite, "I will buy your anthracite, but you must first take your sample to the Royal Technical College in Glasgow, and if on analysis it is found to be anthracite, you will get the order." We are going into the Highlands where there are no raw materials for this proposal. One of the promoters told me in the Lobby outside that they had coal on the banks of the Caledonian Canal. How do you expect us to sit here seriously when people come along and talk such rubbish as that? But getting back to the question of the raw materials and the transport, when you get where you are going to put your work, you have to traverse the Irish Sea with your anthracite, and you will


have to put it in big boats, but you cannot get your big boats into the water where your works are to be.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: That is not correct.

Mr. HARDIE: It is. You provide in the Bill for Dredging. Why do you do that? When you come to these realities of the question, you cannot stand up against them. I want to put this question: Suppose you have the lowest point at which steam can be produced with coal, and you balance that against the cost of shipping your raw materials from Ireland and Wales up to that point, have you made out a balance-sheet to show whether it would be a loss or a saving? These questions have to be dealt with by the people who want to understand what is meant by the Bill.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: Upstairs.

Mr. HARDIE: You are asking too much to go upstairs. I do not agree with that. I think the Members here are more active than they are upstairs in the Committee, and the light is better here, so that you can see the cards being moved about here better than you can upstairs. Now I want to say a word for the men on the land in these areas. Why is it that the crofter is not mentioned? When we have any Bills dealing with the Highlands, we always get the crofter mentioned, and there is always somebody ready to look after him, but there is nothing in this Bill dealing with that question, and there is nothing to say that since they are to have all these de-rating facilities if they get it, these houses will be de-rated too if they start building houses on that land. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that happening.
Now we come to the employment of men, and we are told that this is being done in order to increase employment. We have not been told in the Bill or by the promoters anything definite about numbers. Some tell us 5,000 and some tell us 300. I can understand that if you are going to do mining, you will require a number of men to do that work, but once that is finished you are likely to find more at the Labour Exchange than at Fort William. But what guarantee is there in regard to an increase in the number of men employed, and what

number of men will you be displacing by your work, by the flooding of areas, and interrupting the fishing that is going on now to a certain extent? All these questions ought to be faced. Let me say, finally, that I hope the House will insist upon it that when private companies come along to ask for privileges—and this is a great privilege—instead of having a big, clumsy kind of Bill like this, they will get their brains to work and give us something that every Member can understand.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: Before the hon. Member resumes his seat, I should like to ask him a question. I am sure he does not wish to misrepresent the promoters in this matter.

Mr. HARDIE: No, I do not.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: He made a statement that the local authorities had not been consulted. I have verified it since then that not only were the local authorities consulted, but also the county council.

Mr. HARDIE: In reply to that, we had this afternoon the representatives, the officials, from both these councils, and we put the question to them, and they said they were never consulted. This is something more than hearsay, and the promoters ought to have got letters showing that they have written to these authorities.

Sir W. ALEXANDER: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Order. Both hon. Members have finished their speeches, and I think they should allow others to continue the Debate.

9.13 p.m.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: The object of this Bill is cheap production of electricity in the Western Highlands of Scotland. The electricity produced is to be used mainly for the manufacture of carbide, and I am supporting this Bill principally because I am impressed by the urgent necessity of having adequate supplies of carbide in the United Kingdom. Carbide is a product that is greatly in demand in connection with the process of oxy-acetylene welding and metal cutting, and at the present time it is not manufactured at all in this country, because of the high cost of power here as compared with the cost of power


in foreign countries. Last year some 50,000 tons of carbide were imported into this country, but there is no reason why carbide should not be manufactured successfully in this country provided cheap electrical power is available. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander) has shown how carbide can be used and developed as raw material in the manufacture of various products, such as acetic acid and acetone, which are most necessary in the manufacture of munitions and also for other industries. Oxyacetylene welding is essential among other things, for the manufacture of aeroplanes. Approximately 90 per cent. of the aeroplanes manufactured for the Royal Air Force require oxy-acetylene welding. In a case of emergency, if the importation of carbide were stopped, possibly 90 per cent. of the manufacture of aeroplanes in this country would be brought to a standstill.
We have heard eloquent speeches for and against this Bill. The main objections appear to fall under three heads—first, the objection that natural amenities will be spoiled; second, the question of rates; and, third, that too much power is being given to this company. With regard to the objection of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain A. Ramsay) in connection with the strategic position, I can assure him that, as far as vulnerability to air attack is concerned, it is one of the best places in which an industry could be situated. One has not only to consider geographical position in air attack, but the weather conditions. In that part of the country the weather conditions are not always perfect; moreover, they are very often far from perfect between that part of the country and Europe. My hon. and gallant Friend misled the House—unintentionally, I am sure—in the various statements he made as regards the Lochaber scheme. He implied that there was no reason why the surplus power of the Lochaber scheme should not be made available for the manufacture of carbide. I have been put in possession of a letter since he began his speech, from the Vice-Chairman of the British Aluminium Company, of which the Lochaber Company is a subsidiary industry. In this letter he specifically states that the Lochaber Company are not in a position to use their surplus power

for that purpose. I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend was not able to read the letter before he made his speech.

Sir M. MACDONALD: Is the Noble Lord aware that a few months ago the same Vice-President said that only one-third of the power of the Lochaber scheme was in use?

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I can hand my hon. Friend the letter from which I am quoting.

Sir M. MACDONALD: It is apparent that what is intended by the letter is that they are now, perhaps, contemplating using that power, but actually two-thirds of the power is not being used at this moment.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: The date of the letter is the 16th March, 1936. It is a rather long letter, but I will read the significant passages:
The production of aluminium is a key industry and an adequate home supply is essential for national as well as industrial requirements. We have, therefore, intentionally put ourselves in a position to supply, at short notice, any additional quantities of aluminium which may be required from time to time either by the Government or by industry. Consequently the whole of the water at our disposal, including the limited amount which we can still bring in under our Parliamentary powers, must be reserved for the purposes for which its use was authorised by Parliament, namely, the production of aluminium.
Then the letter goes on:
The utmost which we might possibly be able to do in the direction of supplying power to outside consumers would be to give a very temporary and restricted supply.

Mr. HAROLD MACMILLAN: Does that letter mean that the company is not in a physical position to give the supply required, or are not in a legal position?

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I cannot furnish my hon. Friend with any more information than I have already given. This letter was only handed to me during the course of the Debate, and I have not any other information.

Mr. H. MACMILLAN: My Noble Friend will, I am sure, see that the point is whether the company has a physical difficulty about the extra power, or only has a legal or technical difficulty about making it available.

Mr. HARDIE: The date of the letter is 16th March, 1936. Is not the demand for armaments the cause of the change in regard to power that could not be used in November?

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: That may be the case. I have already told the House that this information has only been brought to me since the Debate started, but it is clear, as things now stand, that you cannot in any circumstances count on getting the surplus power from the Lochaber scheme for the manufacture of carbide.

Mr. ASSHETON: The letter the Noble Lord has quoted conflicts with the evidence which the gentleman who wrote it gave, in the appeal on the rating question as recently as 10th September last, when he made a statement completely contrary to that which has been quoted.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: I am not aware of that. We are confronted with a completely new situation. We are not concerned with the manufacture of aluminium, and there is no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman made further inquiries he would find that the Lochaber Company would refuse to supply any power outside what they require in their own industry. Turning to the amenities which have been dealt with, I have had the opportunity of visiting several hydroelectric stations, in various stages of construction, in different parts of the world, namely, Norway, India and Ceylon, and as regards the question of their destroying natural amenities I think that the ideas in this respect are very much exaggerated. I do not think that anyone loves and admires the glories of Scottish scenery more than I do, but we live in a mechanical age and we have to accept the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be. The country already is immersed in a network of high tension cables, telegraph wires and railway lines, and we have to accept that. This scheme would embody a few more high-tension cables in the North of Scotland. It may be regarded as a pity and a disadvantage. I quite agree, but, on the other hand, one must balance the advantages.
The third objection, that this company is being given too wide and too great powers, is also a question in which one has to balance the advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I do not advocate

companies being granted such sweeping powers normally except when a national asset is involved. One must balance the advantages and disadvantages, and in my opinion the advantages far more than outweigh the disadvantages. I feel that the scheme which this Bill embraces deserves far more consideration than it is possible to give to it in a Second Reading in the limited time before us now. It is impossible to discuss all the details which can be very satisfactorily altered in Committee. Although I support the Bill I would not like to see it passed into law in its present form. Constructive criticism is required, but fundamentally the Bill is bringing to Scotland a great national asset and therefore I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

9.29 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I very much regret that the Secretary of State is unable to be here to-night owing to indisposition, and it now falls to me, quite briefly, to present to hon. Members the information which they will desire to have as to the attitude of the Scottish Office and the other Ministers whose duty it has been to examine this scheme from the various angles of their several Departments. Let me say that with many of the strictures and criticisms which have been passed on this Bill I am in entire sympathy. There are certain features in the Bill which are definitely objectionable, and certain other matters which require the most narrow and careful scrutiny. I should like, quite briefly, to run over the principal points which have been the subject of criticism to-night. For example, the valuation and rating provisions embodied in Clause 67 to which so much reference has been made are definitely unacceptable to my right hon. Friend and if this Bill goes to a Committee it will be his intention to report in that sense to the Committee, with the result that in the light of that report, and still more in the light of the observations which have been made by various hon. Members to night, the fate of that Clause in its present form should not be in doubt. I, therefore, think that the apprehensions entertained on that score by hon. Members on both sides of the House may fairly he regarded as allayed.
I should like in fairness to correct what I venture to think was a slight mis-


apprehension underlying certain of the speeches which were made on this subject. It is hardly correct to say that this company or any of those other concerns receive anything in the nature of a subsidy, or a benefit or an exception from the operation of the general Scottish law on rating. I would rather put the matter in this way. When you come to apply in 1936 a system of valuation and rating which rests on a Statute passed in 1854 in relation to a type of subject which was never thought of in 1854, it necessarily presents a peculiarly difficult and intractable problem to the courts, and there may well be a case for special undertakings of this kind receiving, it may be for a temporary experimental period, some adaptation of the general law, not with the object of giving them an advantage, but of securing a fair and just balance between that type of undertaking and the lands and heritages of other ratepayers. But so far as Clause 67 is concerned the proposals in that Clause are definitely unacceptable, and I think that the observations which have been made on that topic must have made that plain to the promoters of the Bill.
Next I should like to say that, in the view of my right hon. Friend, there do not appear to be in the Bill in its present form sufficient safeguards for various interests which are liable to be injuriously affected by the construction of these works. I am not going to detain the House by entering into details, but it may be of interest to hon. Members who have expressed fears in relation to the possibility of persons being thrown out of employment by the construction of the works if I say that the Departments in Scotland report, as a result of independent investigation, that the number of persons whose livelihood is likely to be affected as a result of the construction of the works, either by reduction in the fishing or the submerging of land, is exceedingly small. I do not wish to commit myself to a definite figure, but the estimate we have received is in the region of only 10 or 12. While I do not suggest that the House should necessarily accept that figure, the apprehensions under that head are not likely to give rise to any serious difficulties.
I pass to another point which was stressed by certain hon. Members and

which is really of crucial importance. We feel that it should be a condition of the grant of powers in relation to a scheme of this kind that it should be made clear beyond reasonable doubt that hydroelectric energy is essential for the economic production of calcium carbide, and that it would not be practicable to establish this industry, as we should like to see it established, either in the industrial part of Scotland or in one of the depressed areas. Hon. Members will have fresh in their recollection the discussion a fortnight ago on the location of industry, and if the question were put in this form, "Would you rather have this industry in Inverness-shire or in Lanarkshire" I think everyone would reply, "Lanarkshire." On the other hand, it is impossible to avoid giving full weight to the fact that the production of calcium carbide on a large scale has hitherto, so far as we are aware, only been possible in association with the use of hydroelectric energy, and from the information placed at my disposal I can confirm the statements in regard to that which were made in the course of his very interesting speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander). But if it be the case that on a balance of the estimates, due consideration being given to what was said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) in relation to the cost of transport of the anthracite and the limestone—I am not sure where they get the limestone—it is satisfactorily shown that without hydro-electric energy this industry cannot be economically conducted, and if one remembers, as certain hon. Members have pointed out, that the West Highland area is practically the Only, if not the only, source of water power now left for development in this country, then the question takes another form. It is not a question of whether the industry should be located in Inverness-shire or Lanarkshire, but whether we should have the industry in Inverness-shire or not have the industry at all.

Captain RAMSAY: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrives at these conclusions I suggest that it is begging the question to say that this industry is only possible with hydroelectric energy when in arriving at these calculations or conclusions, which I


challenge, he has allowed for the special rating facilities to be established in regard to hydro-electric power without allowing the same facilities of a plant producing power from coal.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and gallant Member must have misunderstood me or I must have failed to make myself clear. I have expressed no opinion on that question. All I have said is that it should be a condition precedent to the grant of the powers that the promoters satisfy the Committee, which is an entirely different matter. What I would say on that point is that one cannot leave out of account the fact that in other parts of the world, including Norway and Germany, large-scale production of calcium carbide has, in fact, only been possible with water power, and that we have the water power in the Highlands.

Mr. MacLAREN: What about the Lake District?

The LORD ADVOCATE: When I say that the West Highlands are the only source of water power available I am basing myself on the conclusions of the committee which investigated the water power resources of these islands. The last point of criticism I would make relates to a point to which reference has been made. I think, following upon the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale), that it would be very desirable and, indeed, essential that the availability or non-availability of reserve power in an adjoining scheme should be satisfactorily cleared up before authority is given for this new development. On that point it is fair to point out that in the evidence which was given in regard to the valuation appeal concerning the Lochaber Power Company it was stated, on their behalf, according to the information in my possession, that the development of aluminium which was under contemplation was expected, within a reasonable time, to absorb in great measure the surplus supplies which they had and which they were not at the moment using. But it is not for me or for the House to draw deductions from the very imperfect material before us to-night. It is for the promoters to put that question and

other questions beyond reasonable controversy.
I pass to a wider consideration, and one which deserves careful balancing by hon. Members before deciding how they shall vote. It is the case, and I say this advisedly, and with the authority of the various Ministers concerned, that all three Defence Services, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry—with, in addition, the Board of Trade, from the standpoint of t le civil industries of the country—regard a project for the establishment of carbide manufacture in this country as of such national importance as to deserve the fullest and most careful consideration. The statement is not that careful consideration should be given only to a proposal for establishing such manufacture in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, that recommendation enables me in very large measure to corroborate the statements made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow, to which I think the House listened with much interest, because it does appear that supplies of carbide not only for our heavy industries in peacetime, and for aircraft manufacture in peacetime and in wartime, and for certain explosive materials, are of considerable moment. The hon. Member for Springburn said, I think, how much the heavy industries were dependent upon carbide for oxyacetylene welding, independently altogether of the requirements of the defence Forces. From that point of view, therefore, consideration of this matter seems to be highly desirable from the widest national standpoint—from what might be called the United Kingdom standpoint.
There is one other consideration and one only to which I will refer. In questions to my right hon. Friend and in Debates relating to the Special Areas, there has been much discussion upon the problem of Scottish industrial depression, and upon the difficulties peculiar to Scotland created by its concentration upon the heavy industries and its dependence upon overseas markets. There has been insistence that everything should be done to encourage Scotland to broaden the range of her economic activities and to strengthen her forces against depression by encouraging new enterprises, in addition to those with which the Commissioner is concerned. The suggestion—and it is no more—which will be before


hon. Members when they decide how to vote on the Bill, is simply that this is the first concrete opportunity which has been afforded since the depression of 1929-30 of putting into operation the theories which have been expounded on this side of the House and of seeing, subject to my conditions being satisfied, how this entirely new industry could be set up.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in the event of the Bill not receiving a Second Reading to-night, that proposition would be definitely dropped, or whether an equally suitable site in another part of the country would be contemplated by the promoters?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the House during the part of my speech when I dealt with the location of the site, but I have already made the point, and I repeat it, that the Western Highland area of Scotland is the only one, so far as I am aware, in which water power resources on a large scale have not been developed. If—I put it as a condition—they are still going on for the manufacture of car-bide—

Captain EVANS: If they are—

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is a sine qua non that there is no other site.

Mr. HARDIE: If this work, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is a national necessity, are the Government prepared to go on with it?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot undertake to say that, because it is obviously quite outside the scope of my authority and of the information which has been supplied to me by the appropriate Departments for the consideration of the House. All I can say, including the point I made a moment ago, is that if we have an opportunity in the Bill—I am addressing myself particularly to my Scottish colleagues—of putting those theories into practice and of attracting this new enterprise to Scotland, would it not be a somewhat unfortunate beginning for the practical working out of the theories if this scheme were rejected without giving it an opportunity for dispassionate and thorough inquiry?

Captain RAMSAY: As my right hon. and learned Friend makes such a point of the view that he is urging us to take, may I ask whether, as this is a question of public policy, a committee is not the place to take it?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that is an entirely different point. Under the Rules of the House a Private Bill of this kind would, so far as I am aware, normally go to a Select Committee, which is the only place where the type of investigation which I should prefer, including the examination of witnesses, would be proper and competent.

Captain RAMSAY: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Is a Committee such as that to which the Bill would be sent a proper place to give a decision on public policy?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Obviously. If this Bill is committed, it is within the cognisance of the Committee to take a decision on whatever ground they see fit to take up. At the same time I should point out that it has been not infrequently the custom of this House to deal with questions of public policy on the Second Reading stage.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have put my suggestion before the House as fairly and moderately as I could. I did no more than suggest that the proper and wise course is not to reject the Bill without an opportunity for proper investigation. I would remind hon. Members that in giving the Bill a Second Reading they are not accepting the objectionable features.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Have the Government made up their minds that a point of definite policy is concerned in the Bill? Are they in favour of developing and encouraging water power, as the Bill proposes, or do they wish to use every opportunity of developing the use of the surplus of coal which we have in this country?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not going to make an announcement of policy outside the scope of the Bill, hut, so far as the hon. Member's question relates to the general custom, I have already answered the question by saying that unless the balance of economic production of calcium carbide from hydroelectric energy demonstrates that such a


method of production is definitely preferable to production from coal, I would certainly see this industry established in a coal area, and provide it with coal.
I endeavoured to make clear earlier in my speech that this is a question on which I should expect the Committee to be satisfied and to insist upon the promoters submitting evidence, because this is the basis of the whole proposition. I repeat that the House, in giving this Bill an opportunity for fresh and dispassionate investigation, are committing themselves to nothing in the way of approval of the suggestions in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say "No." They are simply declaring that here is 'a proposition which has the support of the Defence Departments and the Board of Trade, and which, if embodied in the Bill now, would be entirely under control. That is to say, if the Committee pass the Bill the House has not entirely parted with it. Subject to these considerations, my humble suggestions to hon. Members would be that their proper course is to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. MATH ERS: While I thank the Lord Advocate for the admirable statement which he has made on the Bill, I would ask him whether, if the Bill had not contained this particular matter of public policy which has to be decided, it would not have been here but would have been dealt with by the ordinary Scottish procedure'? In giving a Second Reading to the Bill, as he invites us to do, are we not committing ourselves to the principle, and are we not, apart from any other consideration, involving those who are opposed to the Bill—and there are many petitions against it—in all the very great expense of putting forward their petitions? Is it fair that we should refrain to-night from deciding on this particular point of public policy and let the Bill have a Second Reading, involving the possibility of all that expense, and, as the Lord Advocate invites us to keep our rights, involving, it may be, the final rejection of the Bill, when all the expense and trouble will be of no avail? Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with that aspect before he finishes?

9.56 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: You will no doubt guide me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as

to whether the question which the hon. Member has put is one which should be put to me or to you. Under the Private Legislation Procedure Act the decision as to whether a Provisional Order shall be dealt with as a Pre visional Order in Scotland or as a Private Bill in England rests upon the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, and it is because such a decision has been taken that the Bill is being dealt with as a Private Bill, and not as a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Act, 1899, and the amending Act of 1933. But that does not necessarily mean that there is a vital distinction of procedure between the two cases, because, if and when this Bill goes upstairs to a Select Committee, there will be two stages in the procedure. The first stage will be the proof of the Preamble, when, so far as I know, all questions of public policy will be capable of determination, and capable of determination, if I may se put it, far more intelligently, after the facts have been obtained, than is possible for anyone here in this House. After that has been done there will fall to be embarked upon a separate investigation of the details of the Bill. As regards the hon. Member's final point on the question of expense, there is, no doubt, hardship in connection with the expense which has to be borne. That is inseparable from Private Bill procedure. But I would point out that there are, I think, no fewer than 18 or 19 petitions outstanding—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir C. MacANDREW: Is it not a fact that, as a matter of Private Bill procedure, the Chairman of the group of Private Bill Committees can call witnesses himself, and that petitioners can appear in person, without being represented by either counsel or Parliamentary agents?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is perfectly in accordance with practice, and it is entirely a matter for the petitioners to decide as to the extent of the expenditure that they incur. I would point out, however, that only two or three broad cases have to be made, and, since the expenditure will be shared between some 18 or 20 different petitioners—who include, I observe, railway companies and other apparently substantial persons and associations—I imagine that the hardship will not be of so severe a character as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. MATHERS: Arising out of the statement of the Lord Advocate, may I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you can give the House any guidance with regard to the bringing of this Bill here instead of dealing with it as a Provisional Order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House will remember that a few years ago the law dealing with the promotion of Provisional Orders in Scotland was altered, and, although I am speaking from memory, I think that under the existing law a Provisional Order is only brought to this House as a Private Bill if it does one of two things—first, if it affects matters outside Scotland, or, secondly, if it raises matters of such grave public importance that, in the opinion of the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means, it should be dealt with in the first instance by this House.

10.0 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: The questions which have been put and the answers which have been given have made it quite clear that this is a question of definite public importance which the House has a right to consider and vote upon before the Bill is sent to a Committee. I want to put before the House two or three questions of public importance, and I submit that, if the House is satisfied that these questions are of public importance, the burden of answering them and of giving a full explanation is on the promoters of the Bill before they can expect it to be sent to a Committee.
The first consideration is that the Government of this country have decided over a long period that the method of producing current in this country shall be that which is at present carried out by the grid system, and that system, as everybody knows, is dependent in its essence on a coal supply. It was said at the beginning of this Debate that, if we had to make a comparison between water power and coal supply, it was impossible to give an answer in any direction except that of water supply. If you compare the giant water supplies of Canada and Norway with the coal supplies in this country, there can be no answer other than the one which has already been supplied. And if you compare these great sources of power with the doll-like arrangements that it is proposed to put up in the glens of Scotland, the reply

is equally in the direction that those supplies do not compare in any sense with the supplies from Canada and Norway. The real point here is that we have to face the fact, first of all, that it is in the national interest that calcium carbide should be produced in his country. It cannot be produced in this country, by any source of power developed in this country, against the competition of Canada and Norway, unless it is placed on what we know as the Key Industries list, or on some other list which may be considered to be the same as the Key Industries list. In other words, it has to be given some protection in order to enable it to work itself out in this country.
Let us presume that, if it is going to be produced in this country, that protection is given to it. Then we have only to ask ourselves this simple question: Is the supply which it is suggested can be produced in. Scotland so much cheaper than the supply which can be produced in a distressed area by means of coal—in an area which is ready in every respect to take up a new industry Is there any very great difference between the two? I think it is symptomatic to-night that we have not heard from the promoters of the Bill a single statement as to the inquiries they have made in regard to coal-produced power and what the grid is prepared to do in this country. I know from my own experience, as one who is keenly interested in the production of power, that very little inquiry indeed has been made. It has been assumed all along that the cost of production to-day is as much in favour of water-produced electricity as it was 10 years ago. That assumption is completely wrong.

Mr. MACLAY: I am advised by the promoters of the Bill that the Central Electricity Board have been approached and they say that as far as the grid is concerned they cannot help this company, and therefore the company have to produce their own.

Sir G. ELLIS: Have they made inquiries elsewhere? Carbide was produced in several places in free competition in the old days, and ceased to be produced because it could not be produced as cheaply here as in Canada and Norway. The burden of proof on the promoters of this company has not been shown in such


a way as to justify the statement that we could depart from the principle that we could use existing national supplies which are ready for new production, where labour is ready to take on new production, and where new production ought to go.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. MACLAY: I rise to support this Bill, and I feel there is going to be a very close Division on this matter. I wish I had the persuasive powers of debate to bring in one or two of the waverers. The propaganda has been heavy on both sides, and I am thankful that the conclusion of this matter has not brought about what it might have done 300 years ago, by the waters of Loch Ness being reddened with the blood of the protagonists on either side. I rise really to say that here, as a Scottish Member, I see a chance of bringing an important industry, which may have great developments in this area of Scotland. I have examined the advantages and disadvantages likely to accrue to Scotland and also the principles involved in this Bill, and at the same time I have had to keep in front of me the fact that without the majority of the powers asked for in this Bill we will have no industries in Scotland. I admit quite freely the important principles involved in the Bill. There is a private company asking for powers to acquire way-leaves and land for private profit and asking for concessions regarding rating on a large scale. In normal times those would be reasonable conditions. Even now they are reasonable, but to-day we have to give closer examination of the case being put forward than we would give in normal days.
For the last five years I have listened in the country, at elections, at public dinners, and in this House, to Members, and especially Scottish Members, asking that the Government should do everything possible to bring industries to Scotland. We have had very little success so far. The Government have stated that they are not going to enter into a public works policy. I would say this regarding the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has headed the movement for the rejection of the Bill. As lately as July of last year he himself stated in this House that he associated himself with the appeals that have been made to the Government to

encourage new industries in any way they can. He follows that by coming to-night and calling perfectly respectable industrialists "the old gang" and every other name with which he could describe them.

Captain RAMSAY: Is it not stronger proof than anything that I who am in favour of industries coming to Scotland am in favour of the rejection of this Bill?

Mr. MACLAY: Those of us who have continually tried to do everything possible to bring industries to Scotland have asked the Government to give careful consideration to infringing many other principles at stake. It is not quite consistent for a Member to deny a Bill a Second Reading when it is brought up. I am not going to deal with the question of national defence, because the case has been fully made. I have largely considered this Bill as a matter of weighing up advantages and disadvantages, and quite clearly, for Scotland, I can see some prospect of getting industrial work started. The question of having to infringe a principle I am perfectly willing to consider. I think the Committee is perfectly capable of watching that any infringement is such that it will not do the country as a whole harm.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Would it be competent for the Committee to receive advice from coalowners in this country?

Mr. MACLAY: I should say it would I doubt whether they can refuse to see them if they wish to give evidence against the Bill. I am advised that the Mines Association are petitioners against the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could advice also be received from the mineworkers' organisations?

Mr. MACLAY: I should say yes, certainly, but I cannot speak with authority. The first people to ask are the local people of Inverness, because it is for them to say whether they would like this industry or not. I would like to take the points one by one which the people of Inverness have sent up. The first one is the question of diversion of water taut is going towards Inverness. There may be a case where, by rearrangement of the present plans, something may be done to meet the Inverness point of view, bat in the main the promoters state quite clearly that there


is also a proposal to store water in Loch Garry which will have the effect of neutralising the loss of water flowing from Loch Quoich. The regulation of the waters by the reservoirs and darns will improve conditions during the dry weather, despite the absence of water from Loch Quoich. The next point was, "Why did not they take the supply from Lochaber?" and that has been answered satisfactorily.
The next point they raise is the preferential treatment regarding rates, and I think that that question has been very fairly discussed by the Lord Advocate to-night. The promoters of the Scheme do not wish that the ratepayers of Inverness-shire should suffer in any way by the Bill, but the question of rating is surely one for the Committee to decide. It is true that they want to get their terms in regard to rating, but if we are anxious to attract industries, if we cannot risk one or two infringements of a principle that was drawn up in 1854—

Sir G. ELLIS: Does the hon. Member think it fair that hydro-electric development should be granted a relief which is not extended to others? Would the hon. Member give the coal-produced electricity in Glasgow the remission that he seeks?

Mr. MACLAY: I am supporting the case for this Bill. I am not interested in what is going to be done with other concerns. I am willing to infringe the principle to a certain extent if it will not harm the country as a whole.

Sir M. MACDONALD: In view of the possibility that he might not get this rating concession, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached and asked for a subsidy?

Mr. MAGLAY: I cannot answer that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very slow to give subsidies. [Interruption.] Since the new defence programme came in he has been very slow. The last point with which I wish to deal is that in 1929 a Bill said to be very similar to this was brought in, but was thrown out. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman presented the case in its true facts. This is an entirely new principle. The 1929 Bill had no industry attached to it. For that reason I think this Bill should be taken on its own merits, and should not be opposed on the ground

that in 1929 a somewhat similar Measure was thrown out. As to the question of coal being used instead of hydro-electric power, we can all see the force of the argument, but the fact remains that the company tell us that if they have to use coal they cannot go on with the project. That may or may not be so, but the Government spokesman has stated that that contention will have to be substantiated, and I am quite ready to stand by that. According to my figures, it is a very large increase in cost to produce this power by water as against the hydroelectric method.
The question of putting this power and industry into a distressed area is another point which has much force and one to which we have to listen. Wherever we look there is no satisfactory water power in the distressed areas, neither have the Government definitely stated that, in view of the general survey of industry, they have objections to the present suggested location of this industry. If anyone could come along and say that this industry could be established in a distressed area and worked as cheaply, I have no doubt that the promoters of the Bill would be very glad if such an area could be found, as they want to produce as cheaply as possible. We have been told that it will mean a great influx of Irish labourers into Scotland, and that they will be thrown on the dole. Surely, the Ministry of Labour can look after that question. That applies to any industry we might want to start in Scotland. The question has been raised, but I would not let it weigh with me at all.
Amenities are fully protected in the Bill. We cannot have it both ways. If we are to industrialise and have more industries in Scotland, we cannot keep the complete amenities. Those who read the Bill will see that there are safeguards taken to ensure that Scotland, of which we are all so fond, is not scarred or made unnecessarily unsightly. The advice of the Committee under the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Committee under the Fine Arts of Scotland would be welcomed by the promoters of the scheme. The question of fishing rights, which, I notice, has been very lightly touched upon on the part of objectors to the Bill, is one with which I can sympathise, but I would not let the question of salmon stop me. There


are Clauses in the Bill specially framed in order to try to meet and to protect the salmon and the trout fisheries. My main object in backing the Bill is to do everything possible to bring industries to Scotland, and here is a chance. I admit that it is a question of weighing the advantages and the disadvantages, and I would ask the House at least to let us take one step forward by allowing the Bill to go to a Committee.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: The House will agree that there can be no doubt as to the sincerity of the supporters of the Bill in the desire to obtain some betterment of Scottish conditions. I listened with great attention to the speech of the Lord Advocate, and I believe that all of us will agree that he very definitely pointed out that there are very grave problems and very important matters of public interest and policy contained in the Bill. Any Bills placed before the Members of this House asking the House to depart from agreed public policy and questions of public importance should be very carefully worded indeed. Therefore, I suggest that we have here a very cogent and important reason why this Bill should not be allowed to have a Second Reading and go to Committee. We have heard that there has been considerable lobbying on the Bill. I agree. It must be evident that there is great uneasiness among hon. Members with regard to the effect of this Bill if it is passed. In these circumstances it is very unfair to ask the House of Commons to allow the Bill to go to Committee, which will involve those who are opposed to it in a very heavy expenditure in the near future which they cannot meet. I speak as a native of Inverness. The Inverness Town Council not long ago were called upon to spend thousands of pounds in defending themselves against the provisions of a Bill similar to the present Measure.
We are not discussing this as a question which has been settled beyond dispute by experts. We have had no guidance as to the possibility of having this production by steam. We have had no evidence as to whether this desired undertaking can be conducted by other methods. We are merely asked by the promoters to agree to the Bill; that it should go to Committee where their greater power of wealth will enable them

to see that their side of the question receives all the necessary prominence and advertisement it requires. We do not oppose the Bill on the ground that we do not want the industry in Scotland, but because the promoters, a private concern, are asking the local council, the inhabitants of this area, to bear a burden which they should heal themselves. We have heard of the Galloway undertaking. I want to point out that in that great undertaking the local people acted as distributors. They had al agreement with the promoters of the industry which was incorporated in the Act allowing them to be distributors, and giving them very fair terms indeed. But the promoters of this Bill did not feel it incumbent upon them even to attempt to make representations to the Inverness Town Council. Although as a native of Inverness, I do not wholly. approve of this town council, nevertheless it is a town council which has as its main function the protection of the interests of the people of Inverness. Those people have not even been consulted by the promoters of this undertaking.

Mr. MACLAY: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House earlier when it was skated definitely on this side that the promoters had been in touch with the Inverness Town Council?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I was in the House at the time, but I would point out that this afternoon I asked the Provost of the Inverness Town Council the direct question whether his council had been approached at any time by the promoters of this Bill on the matter, and he very definitely answered "No." This undertaking is one on which the promoters of the Bill are definitely asking the Members of this House to depart from all their methods of procedure and all their principles of the past, so far as the valuation or assessment of these undertakings is concerned. This is very important. We have heard it stated tonight that the Lochaber undertaking only uses one-third of its power. I was assured by one of the representatives of the British Oxygen Company that it could only obtain a three years guarantee from the Lochaber Company. In the absence of any other statement, I accept that, but I want to put it to the House, and particularly to the Lord Advocate, that if this is an important national asset, if this carbide is required in the


future, if it is very necessary to assist the Government with regard to any of its plans, why cannot the Government see that the necessary negotiations shall take place between those undertakings in order to arrive at a sensible agreement without placing the burden on the backs of the natives of Inverness County?
If the promoters of this Bill and their supporters in this House believe that this industry is necessary nationally, why cannot they adopt the straightforward attitude of going to the Government and saying that this industry is just as important as any industry in the country, is important to the Air Force and to the heavy industries of the country, and that if it is desired that it should carry on, they ask the Government to assist them by means of a subsidy? That would be the straightforward method. Here we have the House being asked by a private concern to allow it not only its own particular rating, but to allow it to control the local authorities in such a way that it will be able to fix the price of electricity in that particular area. It will take away from the local authority any power in the fixation of electricity prices. The Lord Advocate said that there were grave problems involved in the Bill and that the Scottish Office were not in favour of any special rating facilities being given, or at any rate that on the question of rating they would require certain changes to be made in the Bill. But I have the assurance of the promoters of the Bill that unless they can obtain these concessions on the rating question, the proposition will not be an economic one and they will not be able to go on with the proposed undertaking.
In view of the fact that the natural beauty of the Highlands will be greatly spoiled, despite what hon. Members have said, for what will probably be no useful purpose whatever; in view of the fact that this private concern is asking the House to depart from its established practice and the principles of public policy; in view of the fact that the natives of this county 97 per cent. of whom are opposed to the Bill, are being asked to bear a rating burden which the industry is not prepared to bear—in view of all these facts, I ask the House to treat the Bill as it deserves. If we give this Bill a Second Reading we shall find

other concerns coming to this House, knowing that even if the Bill which they submit is badly worded and asks for concessions which are not deserved, it will be argued that despite those defects it should be remitted to a Committee in order that hon. Members should examine it in detail. If we remit this Bill to a Committee we shall be unjust to the town council of Inverness and the residents of the county. We have definite evidence—and I make this point to show that the question involved is not a small one—that the town of Inverness, situated on the banks of the Ness, 66 miles away from the proposed site will be materially affected as to its sewerage by the diversion of water from the river. We have definite evidence that unless the river Ness is allowed, with its periodic spates, to clear away the debris and sewage that accumulates, the health of the people of Inverness will suffer materially. In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. BROAD: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not one of the "old gang" which has been so gracefully referred to in this Debate. I have not a penny in any of these companies, nor have I been associated with any of them. But I am an engineer interested in my trade and industry and the engineering works of this company happen to be in my constituency. I have paid particular attention to the work which is carried on there and I can tell the House that oxy-acetylene processes are now an essential part of our engineering and metal industries. Apparatus, machinery, and plant are being designed for construction by this process, and whole factories are being laid out. By the very nature of its business the production of this oxygen is of a monopolistic character. There are very few who could say of that company that it has been a sharp practising company, although, to judge by some of the remarks made to-night, you would think that the "B.O.", as we call it, was the Loch Ness monster of which we heard a year or so ago. Those processes so essential to our engineering and metal industries are now getting into their stride. When I left my tools on the bench to come to this House in 1932, these pro-


cesses were hardly used at all, but they are now being used all the way round. There is another essential besides oxygen.

Mr. E. SMITH: Is the hon. Member aware that this method of production is very quickly becoming out of date and is being superseded by a new electrical welding process?

Mr. BROAD: That is a very highly debatable point. If anyone knows the nature of the plant, he knows that it is not really transformable from an electrical point of view to do the work of construction where the oxy-acetylene processes come in. Most companies prefer the oxy-acetylene process to the electrical process. I would like to see the electrical people get it, but I am afraid that the oxy-acetylene is the only practical and economic process up to now. There are two elements required in this process—oxygen and calcium carbide. There is no raw material required for producing the oxygen, but on the other side we are dependent for all our supplies upon foreign countries. We produce practically nothing in this country in the way of calcium carbide, and unless we can get supplies, our industries designed for that process are cut down right away, because you cannot easily transform them into the old-fashioned methods of riveting and bolting.
I would like to see the production of calcium carbide associated with our coal industry. I know that anthracite is only produced of the quality required in Wales. I also happen to know, as we all do, that a very big industrial concern in this country, Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, is very closely associated with the anthracite business, and if there was any reasonable prospect of making the production of calcium carbide by steam-generated electricity, you might be sure that Wales would get it, with the capital behind Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. With capital only too ready to find an outlet where a profit can be obtained, if they could produce that calcium carbide by using coal instead of water power, they would use it in the district where the anthracite is obtained. We shall not subsidise calcium carbide in this country unless we

use the natural resources of the water power in the Highlands.

Mr. LEONARD: Wilt my hon. Friend inform the House whether, when he put his name down to this Bill, he agreed that the subsidy should come from the ratepayers of Inverness?

Mr. BROAD: I will deal with that point in a minute. I want to follow my own line for a moment. If there were any possibility of this industry as a whole or the control of this water power being under national ownership and control, I should be more bitterly opposed than anybody to putting it in the hands of a private company, but that is not likely for a long time. There is no more objection to this concern from the point of view of national ownership than to the schemes of any other company that comes to this House for statutory powers.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the hon. Member's reply to this question? If you gave the same derating to the money invested in steam coal electrical production, what would be the price per unit; and what is the price per unit to-day at which the water power electricity can be produced?

Mr. BROAD: I have neither the data at my disposal nor the expert habit of mind to enable me to deal with that question. I will leave it to be argued by the experts in front of the responsible Committee, sitting in a judicial capacity, which is better able to judge than I or the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). The whole system of rating is absolutely wrong in this country because it is based on the houses of the people rather than on the incomes of the people. The consequence is that, the lower a man's salary the bigger his family, the more housing accommodation he has to provide, and the more he has to pay in rates. The rating system cannot he allowed to stand in the way. While a great railway company like the London and North Eastern is working without paying a penny in rates, the workman has to pay his rates.
There is the question of the amenities of the district. We might have shown our concern for amenities years ago when we were developing our coal industry. We then spoilt every part of our country. I have seen some of the biggest power dams in the world and I know that they


can be made things of beauty and an addition to the scenery. I have never seen a coal mine that was anything but an eyesore. I should like to take people from Glasgow and put them in the Highlands under conditions where they did not have the smoke and gloom and festering sores of the early industrial development. If we were to take these industries into the clean, cool air north of the Caledonian Canal, it would he better than leaving them in the festering areas of Glasgow. These objections in regard to amenities come from the people of leisure who do not like the amenities of their particular districts disturbed. We ought to regard this country as a treasure house of the people rather than a pleasure ground of the leisured class. We need have no fear about this aspect of the question if the Committee that will be set up does its duty properly.

Mr. LEONARD: The question which I asked my hon. Friend was, whether, when he put his name to the Bill, he agreed that the ratepayers of Inverness should pay money to this large concern?

Mr. BROAD: When I put my name to the Bill I agreed to the general principle. I thought that it would be a fine thing to have this industry in that part of Scotland and to give the people in that area a chance of seeing their youngsters settle down in their own district. I cannot claim to be familiar with that part of Britain. I cannot afford non-stop trains to the north, and so I cannot speak as an authority. But if I want to see something of the characteristics of the Scottish people I have no need to go away from London. I ask my hon. Friends on this side—it will be seen that I am in a den of lions—to consider this seriously. Most of them made up their minds how they were going to vote before they heard anything, because I heard a great deal from some who ought to know their own country of how a large number of crofters and small cultivators were going to have their land submerged, and that this was going to create more unemployment than employment. We have heard from the Advocate-General, who speaks with some authority—

Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. I really do not think that the Scottish Members of this House are entitled to allow any hon. Member, even if he comes

from England, to describe the Lord Advocate as the Advocate-General.

Mr. BROAD: I am sorry. The Lord Advocate spoke after having had the advantage of inquiry by the various Departments, and he said that the most whose living might be interfered with was somewhere about 10 or 12. If you are going to give an opportunity of work to 300 or 500 in the initial stage that more than compensates. I do not feel that I am in any way deserting my principles in having put my name on the back of this Bill, and I intend to vote for the Second Reading so that the Bill may receive full consideration in the proper place.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. ASSHETON: I am quite certain that all hon. Members are most anxious to see new industries established, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. I have listened with great interest to-night to the speeches made on both sides. Although I am not a Scottish Member I am deeply interested in certain aspects of this Bill which seem to me to be contrary to the public interest. The authorities in Parliament who decide whether these matters should be proceeded with by private Bill or Provisional Order, have decided that because greater principles are involved this may be debated on the Floor of the House. What are those great principles? In the first place there is the rating question, which has already been much discussed, and which I have not time to go into; but let the House not forget that the promoters of the Bill are asking for a concession which amounts to £20,000 a year. In the brief which they prepared and sent round to hon. Members they say:
Unless a concession is made for works of this nature the rates payable in respect of these works would increase the cost of the power unit beyond an economic basis.
In other words, the industry can only be carried on by this method if there is a subsidy from the ratepayers of Inverness. The second point of principle, which is of much greater importance, is that title promoters are asking for compulsory powers to expropriate the property of private owners in the interests not of a public utility concern but of a company trading for private profit, and I say that this House has never in the past given such powers to a private company. There are people who are not well able to defend


their interests in Committee. The Lord Advocate has referred to the fact that many of the opponents of this Bill are large corporations. I would remind the House that the parishes of Glengarry and Glenmoriston cannot afford to brief counsel upstairs to put their case.
Then it has been alleged that in the public interest it is necessary that this carbide factory should be established somewhere. I maintain that there is no necessity whatever for it to be established in this particular place. It would be much better to establish it where coal can be used in preference to water for producing electricity. But if it be said that this is the ideal place I say that the Lochaber Power Company is in a position to give sufficient power to this company for the manufacture of its carbide. That has been disputed, but I should like to refer to the evidence given recently by Mr. Murray Morrison, of the Lochaber Power Company, before the rating appeal committee, in which he said that the company were only using one-third of their authorised and possible power and saw no prospect of using the remainder. If this company has to be brought into existence, if it is in the

national interest, I suggest that it can be established without doing all the damage which under this Bill would be done to those who have interests in Inverness-shire. We are asked both by the Inverness County Council and i he Inverness Town Council to bear in mind the damage it would do to their interest. We realise also the damage it would do to the interests of these poor crofters and those whose homes will be submerged—

Sir W. ALEXANDER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. ASSHETON: Finally, I would say that here is a case of principle brought before us for our decision—

Sir W. ALEXANDER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe that the House is willing to come to a decision.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 199.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir VI. J. (Armagh)
Everard, W. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Findlay. Sir E.
McKle, J. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Muff, G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nail, Sir J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. M.
Radford, E. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rowlands, G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harbord, A.
Bunciman, Rt. Hen. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Harvey, G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Broad, P. A.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Touche, G. C.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Train, Sir J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Crooke, J. S.
Leckie, J. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, T.



Dawson, Sir P.
Liddall, W. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lindsay, K. M.
Sir William Alexander and Mr.


Ersklne Hill, A. G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Maclay.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Banfield, J. W.
Cape, T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Batey, J.
Cary, R. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Albery, I. J.
Benson, G.
Cluse, W. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cobb, Sir C. S.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Boulton, W. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Assheton, R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Courthope Col. Sir G. L.


Astor. Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cross, R. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crossley, A. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. K. C. (Newbury)
Daggar, G.


Baltour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bull, B. B.
Davidson, J. J. (Haryhill)


Balniel, Lord
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)




Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Dabble, W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Scott, Lord William


Duggan, H. J.
Kimball, L.
Sexton, T. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shinwell, E.


Eastwood, J. F.
Latham, Sir P.
Short, A.


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Ellis, Sir G.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Elliston, G. S.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Logan, D. G.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Storey, S.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Frankel, D.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Furness, S. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gardner, B. W.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Georqe, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Magnay, T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibbins, J.
Mander, G. le M.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Glyn. Major Sir R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, sir M.
Thurtle, E.


Gower, Sir B. V.
Marklew, E.
Tinker, J. J.


Graham, O. M. (Hamilton)
Mathers, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Vlant, S. P.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Messer, F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Walker, J.


Groves, T. E.
Milner, Major J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Montague, F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.
Watson, W. McL.


Hardie, G. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Welsh, J. C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.
White, H. Graham


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Patrick, C. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Petherick, M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hicks, E. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Holdsworth, H.
Plugge, L. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Holland, A.
Potts, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Quibell, J. D.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hopkinson, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jagger, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)



Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.
Captain Ramsay and Sir Murdoch


Jones, L, (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Macdonald.


Kelly, W. T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to: Second Reading put off for six months.

OATS (SCOTLAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Now that the interests of the sportsmen of England have been fully protected and vindicated, I am sure that hon. Members—even English hon. Members—will forgive me if for a moment or two I direct the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a

question which I believe to be of much more fundamental importance to Scotland even than the Bill which we have just discussed, that is to say, the question of oats. When I say oats, that carries with it not merely a section of Scotland which may be affected or unaffected by a scheme for creating electrical power. It really involves the whole of Scottish agriculture at the present time. The Secretary of State for Scotland recently stated that he was sorry for those farmers who depended for their cereal crop on oats, in the position in which they find themselves. The Secretary of State for Scotland has no right to be sorry for these farmers who depend for their cereal crop on oats. He ought to put their position right so that he and we may no longer have any need to find ourselves sorry.
I want to put one or two facts to my right hon. Friend. In 1931, to use the Secretary of State's phrase, the wheat growers "found themselves" selling wheat at 24s. a quarter. Since then it has remained pretty steady at an average of about 24s. a quarter, but the wheat grower to-day is having his price moved up from 42s. to 45s. per quarter by a deficiency payment. In 1931, the year in which the wheat grower was getting 24s. a quarter, the oat grower was getting between 16s. and 18s. a quarter for his crop, or about 3s. a quarter below the cost of production, to put it at the lowest possible figure. To-day the oat grower is getting 13s. per quarter in Scotland. Since March, 1914, the oat grower has suffered a fall of about 10s. a quarter, and the wheat grower has obtained an increase of 11s. per quarter on his crop. My hon. Friend mentioned that this was through no fault of the wheat grower or the oat grower. There is no question of merit in the matter at all. It is simply a question of Government action. What justice is there in the fact that by Government action the price has been raised to the wheat grower by 11s. and reduced to the oat grower by 10s. a quarter since 1914?
He knows, and the House knows, that there has been in recent months and indeed in recent years a very serious slump in beef prices. What is the result? The result, in Aberdeenshire at any rate, which is perhaps one of the most important centres of beef production in this country, has been not only a reduction of stock carried on the farms, but the substitution of first-rate cattle on many farms throughout the north-east of Scotland by cheaper beasts on which less capital lies. Why? Because in existing circumstances it is absolutely impossible for the farmer in the north of Scotland to make a profit on first-grade cattle with oats at their present prices.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has told us what the position is and I imagine that he is going to state a remedy. If that is so, I do not see how that can be applied without legislation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not know that actual legislation would be necessary. I think a certain amount can be done by administration under various marketing schemes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be suggesting a remedy by legislation, in which case he would be out of order on the Motion for tae Adjournment.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I have no proposals of a constructive character to offer on this occasion, though on other occasions I shall take the opportunity of doing so. I was simply stating the appalling position of the farmers in north-east Scotland and asking the Under-Secretary whether he had any views on the matter and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation. It is for him, rather than for me to suggest remedies. I am not wedded to any particular legislative Measure. I merely wish to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates the gravity of the situation and what proposals the Government have in mind to deal with it. They have not hitherto made any proposals, legislative or administrative or of any other kind. Therefore I am going to put the onus on the Under-Secretary of suggesting what could be done. Obviously, the question of a subsidy is involved. It seems odd that the Government should have chosen wheat and sugar, of which there is a world glut, and given them subsidies—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does not that suggest a legislative remedy?

Mr. BOOTHBY: It seems unfair that the Government should arbitrarily choose two products which cannot be produced in the north of Scotland—

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be out of order.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The Secretary of State says he has been considering the matter for two or three years. Whatever the remedy may be, the facts of the situation are desperate. The farmers and farm workers in the north of Scotland are a magnificent set of people and they are being driven by existing conditions, over which they have little control and for which they are not responsible, into ruin and bankruptcy. The Under-Secretary cannot expect us who represent them to stand by and watch that process going on. We are entitled at this stage, and after all the questions and the debates that have taken place in the last two or three years, to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to tell us in plain terms what the views of the Scottish Office are and what steps they propose to take to deal with it.

Mr. GALLACHER: May I ask if the Farmers' Union or the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture has yet put in a request for a subsidy and, if they do, what consideration will be given to it?

11.20 p.m.

Sir R. W. SMITH: My hon. Friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has raised the question of oats, and I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without saying a few words on the subject. He has sought to, draw the attention of the House to the present position of the Scottish cereal farmers. It is impossible by question and supplementary question to deal with the point and even now, on the Adjournment, only a very small part of the subject can be dealt with. I want to be assured that the question is really being dealt with, and that the gravity of the situation is realised by the Government-I ask hon. Members to realise the serious position of Scotland. The cereal question is getting worse and worse.
We might talk about erasing the cereal position by means of meat, but that is impossible. If you put up the price of meat to meet the cereal position, the price of meat will have to come down again because it would be such that it could not compete with the rest of the market. I should like more support on this question from English and Welsh Members. As long ago as 1932 I recollect a question being put by a, Welsh Member to the then Minister of Agriculture. He asked whether, in formulating proposals with a view to helping agriculture, he would consider the special conditions of the agricultural industry in the counties of North Wales, in view of the fact that no wheat was grown there; and the reply which was given was as follows:
I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the framing of agricultural policy, all aspects of the agricultural industry receive full consideration.
That reply was given on the 22nd February, 1932, four years ago. We Scotsmen voted in favour of the Wheat Bill in order to help the English farmer and the wheat grower in regard to their cereal crops, because we considered that it was absolutely necessary, and in view of the assurance that we were given by the then Minister of Agriculture that this was the beginning. Those of us who listened to the introduction of the Wheat Bill were given to understand that this

was but a step in the agricultural policy. We have been waiting for four years for something to be done for the cereal situation in Scotland. Matters have not improved. The Government tried to improve the situation by means of tariffs. That certainly showed that they were anxious, and felt that the cereal crop should be put on a paying footing. But the effect of tariffs has not been favourable to the cereal crop, and I therefore appeal to the Scottish Office to make a statement as to what is to be done, and to give an assurance that something will be done soon.

11.24 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut. - Colonel Colville): My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said truly that he had no constructive suggestions to make.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I have plenty of suggestions, but I could not make them on this Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: He said that he had no constructive suggestions to make to-night, and I am in the position owing to the Rules of the. House, that I cannot go into the details as I should like in answering the points which he has raised. The question of the difficulties with which the farmers in North-East Scotland are faced is well known to the Government, and it is not from any lack of realisation of those difficulties that action has not been taken on the lines which the hon. Member wished, but was unable, to suggest to-night. The reason for the difficulties arises from the reduction in the price of oats. It particularly affects the farmers in that area, because it is the principal cash crop in that area, and they are unable to resort to other crops in the way that farmers in certain other areas have been able to do. The position is made difficult by the fact that they are not the only people that grow oats. The amount of oats grown in the United Kingdom last year was 36,000,000 cwts., of which an important part, but still only a part, was grown in Scotland.
So far as any remedies are concerned, we shall have to take into consideration whether these areas can be dealt with in isolation. The hon. Member will realise that it is difficult to isolate any


particular area and deal with it in a special way. A part of the difficulty in dealing with oats is that it is a crop which is not susceptible to assistance from tariffs in the same way as a crop of which we import a great part of our requirements. Ninety per cent. of the total available supplies are produced at home. The import duty on foreign oats of 9s. a quarter has virtually shut out all foreign oats and the margin which is imported is almost entirely from the Empire. Therefore the assistance which can be given to the growers of oats is not comparable to that which can be given in a case where there is a great importation of the product and where one is able to issue regulations regarding imports which are of assistance to growers in this country. I am precluded from going into possible remedies for this situation, but I can assure the hon. Member that the whole problem is under our most active consideration at the present time. Only yesterday afternoon I attended a meeting, where the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Parliamentary Secretary, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the representatives of the Departments were present; and we spent the whole afternoon in examining this particular subject. I can assure the hon. Member that we had before us and were examining with great minuteness and with every desire to bring to a satisfactory conclusion every proposal which would affect the situation.
The difficulties cannot be explained by me in this Debate without entering upon possible legislative proposals, and I cannot therefore continue my observations; but before I sit down I would like to assure the hon. Member who raised the point, and the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith) that the problem of the growers of oats in the North East of Scotland is one which is very actively before the Government at the present time. In reply to the question put by the hon. Member the Farmers Union of Scotland has asked for a subsidy, but to my knowledge the Chamber of Agriculture has not put forward such a request. I can only say that these things are under consideration, and obviously I cannot give a further answer on that point to-night. The hon. Member may be fully assured that this very difficult and complex subject is under consideration. Even if the lion. Member had by the rules of the Debate been allowed to make constructive suggestions, I doubt whether he would have made any, because for the long period during which he has asked numerous questions about this matter, there have been more questions than suggestions. I assure him that the question is being actively examined by the Government with a view to finding a solution for this difficult problem.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.